Copyright Dates (Was: Re: [VOTE] 2.0.57 candidate)

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com>]

As I read it, yes it appears that even just changing the last
date does not make sense. For example assuming a valid 1999-2004
and the file is updated in 2006, 1999-2006 would not be
correct, if I understand it, but instead 1999-2004,2006
would be "more correct"... I think :)

In any case, I reverted the 1.3-related patch and will hold
off releasing 1.3.35 until this is resolved. This should be
added (if not already) to next week's board meeting since
it's a policy change that all projects should adhere to
(the Jackrabbit method)...

Re: Copyright Dates (Was: Re: [VOTE] 2.0.57 candidate)

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 4/21/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>>You are correct. Only the years in which the file was actually changed
>>should be listed in the copyright.
> 
> If we want to get pedantic, it should only be year of first publication.  ;-)

Yes.  What is publication?  When we release a major update of the code, that's
a new publication (e.g. if the work is rewritten, as 2.0 was from 1.3, then it's
a single copyright date of the new 2.0 work.)

If we adopt the 'publication' of an ASF work as it's release (collective) than
this whole mumbo jumbo goes away.  The date is the release date of the work,
e.g. the date we released 2.0 GA.  For 2.2?  I don't know if that's a work or
an incremental change to 2.0.

It would certainly save much grief only to coordinate copyright when the work
is tagged from trunk/ to a branch/ and released the first time.

> For reference, here's Larry Rosen's post to legal-discuss@ on the form
> of copyright notice:
> 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200503.mbox/%3c20050305112417.GA45904@mail26d.sbc-webhosting.com%3e

Which contradicts the implemetation adopted by Jackrabbit (recently endorsed
as our model?)  We assert our license in every file, yet Larry's post indicates
that is overkill.  We fail to assert our copyright in the Jackrabbit src/ tree.
(Although Larry's post suggests a copyright on the web site download page
is enough - which gets interesting on copyright dates since what date would you
brand the page http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/ ?).  Larry is clear that it's
the copyright that binds the license, not the license that binds the copyright,
so asserting a license where you don't assert a copyright seems oddish.  E.g.
it doesn't matter if we give you one license, or 100, if we've told you the file
is copyrighted - you can only use it with our permission (the license.)

Re: Copyright Dates (Was: Re: [VOTE] 2.0.57 candidate)

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

On 4/21/06, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> You are correct. Only the years in which the file was actually changed
> should be listed in the copyright.

If we want to get pedantic, it should only be year of first publication.  ;-)

For reference, here's Larry Rosen's post to legal-discuss@ on the form
of copyright notice:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200503.mbox/%3c20050305112417.GA45904@mail26d.sbc-webhosting.com%3e

(There are some other things in that post that are policy issues
instead of legal issues - which is where we tend to get diverging
opinions; but Larry's description of the form of notice is accurate.)

HTH.  -- justin