archive-license mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: New license and copyright dates
Date Tue, 03 Feb 2004 06:05:44 GMT

I personally don't see why a file with "Copyright 1999-2004" is going to
be materially more or less effective than having a CVS tree with time
stamps going that far back.  For the purposes of anyone trying to follow
the terms of the license, the most recent date is all that matters.

So I wouldn't worry too much about it, is my sense - others?


On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Martin Cooper wrote:
> Hello,
> One of the things that has been drilled into me over 25+ years as a
> software developer is the importance of keeping the correct copyright
> years in the source code. In particular, I have repeatedly heard from
> corporate lawyers that it is *very* important to keep the original
> copyright year on each file, in addition to the years of subsequent
> modification. The reasons have to do with demonstration of "prior art" in
> intellectual property law and patent litigation.
> The reason I am bringing this up here is because I am seeing committers
> across numerous Jakarta projects ignoring this. The problem is spreading
> as people start switching to the new 2.0 license, overwriting the old
> license with the new one using scripts, and thus losing the original
> copyright year.
> Rather than try to correct this each time I see it, and wonder how many
> places I'm not catching, I think it would be a good idea if a message was
> sent to committers@ pointing out the importance of this. Unless all those
> corporate lawyers are wrong and / or it doesn't matter to the ASF, that
> is... ;-)
> Thanks.
> --
> Martin Cooper

View raw message