This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: copyright dates in binutils (and includes/)
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: binutils at sourceware dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 05:25:51 -0800
- Subject: Re: copyright dates in binutils (and includes/)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140227045011 dot GC14922 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org>
My two cents...
> --- a/bfd/elf32-sparc.c
> +++ b/bfd/elf32-sparc.c
> @@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
> /* SPARC-specific support for 32-bit ELF
> - Copyright 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,
> - 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011
> - Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> + Copyright (C) 1993-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This file is part of BFD, the Binary File Descriptor library.
> Does anyone have a violent objection to committing updates in
> bfd, binutils, elfcpp, gas, gold, gprof, ld, and opcodes?
FWIW, I find that the new ouptut is a nice improvement.
I should mention, however, that for us to use ranges like this,
the FSF asked us to add a note explaining that the copyright years
could be abbreviated into a range. See gdb/README (at the end).
I suspect that you'll need the same note for binutils.
> How about includes/ too? The choices there are
> a) apply to just binutils owned files,
> b) apply to binutils+gdb files,
> c) apply to the lot, and update gcc/include/ too.
> I see Joel already updated include/gdb, but the script makes a further
> small change. So choice (b) in include/gdb consists of patches like
> the following:
IIRC, the FSF does not require the (C), but I think they would
prefer it. Either way, it doesn't get in the way for future updates,
so I'd go with at least (b).
As for (c), I'll let the GCC folks answer.