On 20.03.2015 09:58, Greg Stein wrote:
> Daniel Berlin stated many years ago that the years associated with
> copyright lines are meaningless. There is no reason to burn/re-roll
> just for that.
>
> The simple fact is that if you end up in court, then what is printed
> to the console has ZERO bearing (or what year is listed in a source
> file). The court will look at what/when changes *actually* happened.
> What we state is irrelevant. The commit logs are the important point.
>
> So given that, what is the purpose of displaying those years? *shrug*
> (which was basically his point)
>
> -0.9 to even thinking about burning tarballs for this reason.
IMO, we should either not display the year (which IIUC would violate ASF
policy), or we should display the correct year. Anything else makes us
look silly.
If I'm wrong about policy, then I propose we just change those lines from:
Copyright (C) 2014 The Apache Software Foundation.
to
Copyright The Apache Software Foundation.
(since I believe the (C) is also redundant ... as it stands now, the
whole thing is pronounced "copyright copyright twothousandfourteen by
the apache software foundation").
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com
> <mailto:brane_at_wandisco.com>> wrote:
>
> I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright year.
> Fixed in r1667941 and nominated for backport to 1.9.x, 1.8.x and
> 1.7.x.
> I also vetoed the 1.7.20 and 1.8.13 releases because of the wrong year
> ... we really shouldn't release with wrong legalese, and we already
> allowed 1.9.0-beta1 to slip through with that buglet.
>
s/vetoed/changed my vote to -1/
As Greg kindly reminded my privately, once can't actually veto a release.
> Sorry about not noticing this earlier, I realize we already have
> enough
> votes tor 1.7.20 and 1.8.13; but I really think we should pull these
> tarballs.
>
> -- Brane
>
Received on 2015-03-20 10:30:56 CET