Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support/win32 ApacheMonitor.c ApacheMonitor.h ApacheMonitor.rc wintty.c

[Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>]

On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 13:32, Ben Laurie wrote:
> nd@apache.org wrote:
> > nd          2004/01/01 05:26:26
> >   Log:
> >   update license to 2004.
> 
> Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright doesn't. And, in any 
> case, the earliest date applies, so it gets us nowhere.

We seem to have this discussion every year.  I'm too lazy to extensively
dig in the archives, but:

http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=dev@httpd.apache.org&msgNo=79209

Roy:
"That would change a lot more, and a lot less, than we want.
 I've committed the change for 2.0 and will do 1.3 next."

Roy, care to explain what it is we want (and more importantly why)?
I promise to mold the answer into a developer FAQ.

Sander

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support/win32 ApacheMonitor.c ApacheMonitor.h ApacheMonitor.rc wintty.c

[Erik Abele <er...@codefaktor.de>]

On 02.01.2004, at 14:34, Sander Striker wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 13:32, Ben Laurie wrote:
>> nd@apache.org wrote:
>>> nd          2004/01/01 05:26:26
>>>   Log:
>>>   update license to 2004.
>>
>> Why? Unless the file changes in 2004, the copyright doesn't. And, in  
>> any
>> case, the earliest date applies, so it gets us nowhere.
>
> We seem to have this discussion every year.  I'm too lazy to  
> extensively
> dig in the archives, but:
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? 
> listName=dev@httpd.apache.org&msgNo=79209
>
> Roy:
> "That would change a lot more, and a lot less, than we want.
>  I've committed the change for 2.0 and will do 1.3 next."
>
> Roy, care to explain what it is we want (and more importantly why)?
> I promise to mold the answer into a developer FAQ.

IANAL (nor am I Roy, of course) but after reading  
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html (especially #noc and #hlc) it  
appears to me that basically the correct way is what Ben suggested  
(only bump year when file changes):

"The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the  
following three elements:
...
2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of  
compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published  
material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or  
derivative work is sufficient.
..."

On the other hand I don't see any harm in doing the bump in all files  
in one go since one can argue that in the end it's a combined work of  
all the files and we're just stating this in every, single file. So,  
when one file changes, the combined work changes and we've to change  
every file to reflect this fact. Does this make sense?

just my 2c...

Cheers,
Erik