This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: copyright dates in binutils (and includes/)
- From: Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:26:52 +1030
- 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> <20140227132551 dot GO4348 at adacore dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1402271845060 dot 27019 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 06:47:17PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > 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.
Thanks Joel. I'll copy that or the gcc wording.
> And, where a gap in the years is being implicitly filled in by conversion
> to a range, make sure that either (a) there was a public version control
> repository for binutils during that year, or (b) there was a release
> (including beta releases, Cygnus releases etc., not just official
> releases) during that year.
It looks like the earliest binutils files that are edited by
update-copyright.py have copyright dates starting at 1985. Of those,
quite a few have skipped years. eg. binutils/filemode.c is
Copyright 1985, 1990,...
So, CVS goes back to 1991, and there are copies of old binutils
releases for all years from 1988 to 2002 except for 1999 at
Joseph, do you know why implicitly adding years to the claimed
copyright years is a problem? I'm guessing the file needs to be
published somewhere for each year claimed.
Australia Development Lab, IBM