Nice Info Malcom.
Can I go ahead with the patch without the Copyright year bump?
With regards
Kamesh Jayachandran
Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 07:06:42PM +0530, Kamesh Jayachandran wrote:
>
>> Malcolm Rowe wrote:
>>
>>> I'm fairly sure that fixing a typo isn't a significant enough change
>>> to create a new derived work (which is why we'd list a range of
>>> copyright years in the first place).
>>>
>>>
>> I could not understand you. Do you mean not to bump the copyright year
>> for the typo changes if applicable?
>>
>>
>
> Correct, we shouldn't bump the copyright year for a change this simple.
>
> The reason we list copyright years at all is so that we can record when
> the work was first published (and therefore when the copyright expires).
> When we make changes to a work, the changes may or may not be protectable
> under copyright themselves: if they are, we have created a derived work
> and gain copyright protection for part of it from the date of the change's
> first publication.
>
> Obviously, we can't just bump the copyright year without making _any_
> changes to the work, since that would allow us to extend copyright
> infinitely. But we also can't just make a trivial change and bump the
> year, since we could then achieve the same thing by trivial means.
>
> So when we bump the copyright years, we should only do so if we've added
> something that's worthy of copyright protection. And while that's
> a difficult thing to judge, I'm pretty sure that correcting typos in
> comments isn't.
>
> ObDisclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice.
>
> Regards,
> Malcolm
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 17 15:25:36 2007