This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: copyright dates in binutils (and includes/)
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: <binutils at sourceware dot org>, <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:22:08 +0000
- 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> <20140228085652 dot GI14922 at bubble dot grove dot modra dot org> <20140228130844 dot GA4893 at adacore dot com>
On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > 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.
> IANAL, but from 2 discussions with copyright-clerk:
> 1. We start claiming copyright the year the file as committed
> to a medium (hard drive), not the year it was published.
I don't think it counts unless the version in question got published at
some point. The question is about versions that weren't published at the
time, but were published later when the version control history was
There was a discussion on bug-standards starting Jan 2012. Karl's revised
wording from 11 May 2012 seems to indicate that if a version was committed
to a version control history that was later released, the dates from that
history count as copyrightable years (so reducing the number of cases
where it may not be possible to fill in gaps) - but that revised wording
doesn't seem to have been committed.
Joseph S. Myers