svn commit: r232065 - head/sys/dev/fb
brde at optusnet.com.au
Fri Feb 24 15:40:47 UTC 2012
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Thursday 23 February 2012 07:24 pm, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 02/23/2012 16:17, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
>>> I remember there were some discussions in developers@ that
>>> "2009-2012" is more appropriate than "2009, 2010, 2012" or
>>> "2009-2010, 2012", if my memory serves. Anyone?
>> "2009, 2010, 2012" is as synonym for "2009-2010, 2012" and I see it
>> both ways. That's not the issue. (However, if it were 2008-2010
>> that is generally preferred vs. listing all 3 years individually.)
>> The issue is that it's a basic tenet of copyright law that you
>> cannot claim copyright in a year that you didn't actually make any
>> changes. This makes sense if you think about it ... your rights
>> from the last year you changed something don't expire at the end of
>> that year, and if you didn't make changes in 2011 you don't have
>> any new material that needs protection.
Make changes or publish them? What about limited publication?
> I am not a lawyer but I do know the date is optional, at least in the
> US. I just googled a bit. Some people say "first-last" form is
> fine. Some say otherwise. Also, it seems it depends on where they
> live. Is there any authoritative answer from the Foundation, I
>> For instance:
>> Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993,
>> 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights
> Yeah, I know that example very well. I've seen that copyright notice
> for two decades or so. :-)
Did they not work on it in 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990?
Seems unlikely :-). Of course, they just didn't publish it. Gaps
won't exist now, since there is more pressure to publish and a public
repository gives a publication every nanosecond.
I look (sic) forward to reading the 2000-4000 copyright, which resembles
$(jot 2000 2000).
More information about the svn-src-head