From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Feb 24 01:03:19 2012
Return-Path: <owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B93A1065675;
	Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:03:19 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:03:10 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <201202231916.q1NJG5Oj019386@svn.freebsd.org>
	<201202231917.32499.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
	<4F46D8C4.2030401@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F46D8C4.2030401@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201202232003.13676.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>,
	"svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>,
	"src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r232065 - head/sys/dev/fb
X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current
	<svn-src-head.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head>,
	<mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-src-head@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head>,
	<mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:03:19 -0000

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.

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. :-)

Jung-uk Kim