From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 24 15:40:47 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74666106566B; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:40:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brde@optusnet.com.au) Received: from mail17.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail17.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.198]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075858FC19; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:40:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c211-30-171-136.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au (c211-30-171-136.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.171.136]) by mail17.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id q1OFeh7X026363 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:40:45 +1100 Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:40:43 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org To: Jung-uk Kim In-Reply-To: <201202232003.13676.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: <20120225023342.V1150@besplex.bde.org> References: <201202231916.q1NJG5Oj019386@svn.freebsd.org> <201202231917.32499.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <4F46D8C4.2030401@FreeBSD.org> <201202232003.13676.jkim@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , Doug Barton , "src-committers@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: svn commit: r232065 - head/sys/dev/fb X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:40:47 -0000 On Thu, 23 Feb 2012, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Thursday 23 February 2012 07:24 pm, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 02/23/2012 16:17, Jung-uk Kim wrote: >>> I remember there were some discussions in developers@ that >>> "2009-2012" is more appropriate than "2009, 2010, 2012" or >>> "2009-2010, 2012", if my memory serves. Anyone? >> >> "2009, 2010, 2012" is as synonym for "2009-2010, 2012" and I see it >> both ways. That's not the issue. (However, if it were 2008-2010 >> that is generally preferred vs. listing all 3 years individually.) >> >> The issue is that it's a basic tenet of copyright law that you >> cannot claim copyright in a year that you didn't actually make any >> changes. This makes sense if you think about it ... your rights >> from the last year you changed something don't expire at the end of >> that year, and if you didn't make changes in 2011 you don't have >> any new material that needs protection. Make changes or publish them? What about limited publication? > I am not a lawyer but I do know the date is optional, at least in the > US. I just googled a bit. Some people say "first-last" form is > fine. Some say otherwise. Also, it seems it depends on where they > live. Is there any authoritative answer from the Foundation, I > wonder? > >> For instance: >> >> Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, >> 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights >> reserved. > > Yeah, I know that example very well. I've seen that copyright notice > for two decades or so. :-) Did they not work on it in 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990? Seems unlikely :-). Of course, they just didn't publish it. Gaps won't exist now, since there is more pressure to publish and a public repository gives a publication every nanosecond. I look (sic) forward to reading the 2000-4000 copyright, which resembles $(jot 2000 2000). Bruce