Re: [PATCH RFC] Update/correct copyright notices

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at delorie dot com>]

> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:20:41 -0700
> From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
> 
>     You should use the list of years in which released versions were
>     finished, just as for any other file.
> 
> I don't know what to make of this.  Don't snapshots qualify as a type
> of a release?

I don't think so.  At least I'm not treating them as such.  But IANAL,
so if we are in doubt, we should ask the FSF.

> What about mere availability via CVS?

IMHO, this would lead to absurd.  For example, any machine that is
hooked to the Internet and has some unfinished GDB-related files lying
around would be considered a ``release'', since authorized users can
ftp in and fetch those files.

> I also think that, for many maintainers, the care and feeding of the
> copyright notices is the least appealing part of the job.

That's tough on them, but IMHO it's a responsibility that comes with
the territory.  Why should I expect that someone else helps me to fix
the files I'm responsible for?  If I have difficulty finding the files
that need fixing, I will run your script (for which thanks a lot,
btw).  I would also not object if Andrew or someone else (even a cron
job) would run the script from time to time and send me any problems
it finds.  But I'd like to leave the question of when and whether to
fix them at my discretion.

> I assume that you'd like the following files to go on this list?
> 
>     go32-nat.c
>     config/i386/go32.mh
>     config/djgpp/fnchange.lst		(not that this one has a copyright
>					 notice, but adding it to the
>					 list will squelch the warnings
>					 about it not having a notice)
>     config/djgpp/djconfig.sh
>     ser-go32.c
> 
> Any others?

If you are asking what files are my responsibility, then all the files
in config/djgpp/ and the config/i386/*-go32.h belong to them as well.

Thanks.