Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com> writes:
> "B. W. Fitzpatrick" wrote:
> > However, you clobbered the 2002 copyright on these files (it should be
> > 2002-2003, not 2000-2003):
>
> It was a deliberate decision. I found a bunch of old copyright
> dates that were not updated to 2002 and thought that having a single
> 2000-2003 throughout the code base would be easier to find and update
> when 2004 rolls around.
Nahh. You *could* just wrap some parens around the first year in the
match and use groupings to pull out the first date and reuse it. :)
> If this is an issue, I can go back and fix these dates.
No worries--I don't think it's a big issue.
> Also, what happens when people copy a file to create a new file that
> includes an old 2000-2003 copyright even through the file is brand
> new? Does have the old date in there really matter from a legal
> point of view?
I don't think it's anything more than a matter of correctness. Any
lawyers here want to add their 2 cents?
-Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 3 03:38:42 2003