On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 08:43:31PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> I know we've talked about this in the past (perhaps you weren't here
> for those conversations, Malcolm), but changing copyright years when
> the file or project hasn't substantively changed is a bad idea.
I'm pretty sure I remember those conversations, and you're right that
lying about copyright dates isn't good - which is why I was careful to
only adjust those dates that refer to the collective work as a whole,
rather than on all individual files. IANAL, but I don't think there's
anything wrong in that.
> technically, it's only supposed to be the year of first publication
> not the most recent one.
Well, you're right that at the moment there isn't much to distinguish
our tree at the end of 2006 from the current one, but I'm sure we'll
commit _something_ that's legally significant from a copyright
perspective at some point fairly soon. At which point, as I understand
it, the collection becomes a derivative work of something with a
copyright date of 2007, so the whole lot gets to have that date.
The alternatives, I guess, is to either bump the dates immediately
before a release (though I don't see that publication via release is any
different to publication via ViewVC), or to decide at what point during
the year we've committed something legally significant.
> Can we please get the SVN Corp Board to deal with this definitively?
Sure, it'd be good to get definitive advice if we can.
Received on Tue Jan 2 21:17:12 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored