This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] memset: also update copyright years


On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> On 04/09/2012 10:32 AM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> It's not clear to *me* from the GNU coding standard when it is correct
>> and not correct to collapse the years.
>>
>> I think that the piece of missing text is that which was provided by
>> Karl Berry in his email:
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-standards/2012-02/msg00003.html
>
> Sorry, I'm still confused about what it is you find confusing. :-)
>
> By "collapse the years" do you mean using a range like 2009-2012
> rather than a list like 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012? ?In that case, maintain.texi
> says this:
>
> ?You can use a range (@samp{2008-2010}) instead of listing individual
> ?years (@samp{2008, 2009, 2010}) if and only if: 1)@tie{}every year in
> ?the range, inclusive, really is a ``copyrightable'' year that would be
> ?listed individually; @emph{and} 2)@tie{}you make an explicit statement
> ?in a @file{README} file about this usage.
>
> Is the confusion about what is meant by a "copyrightable" year?
> That topic is discussed in an earlier paragraph, though the phrase
> "copyrightable year" isn't used -- is that where the confusion comes from?
>
> Sorry to be so slow and dense about this, but legalisms are that way
> sometimes. ?I do want to improve the wording to make it clearer.

No need to be sorry, I fully appreciate your interest in ensuring that
this is correct and clear.

The question is: Are you allowed to collapse the years if those years
listed in the source file are *not* contiguous? I know the answer is
yes, but extracting that realization from the text is difficult
because no such example is given. The same goes for the README text
which is equally broad. The GNU Coding Standard and the README are
*correct*, but not sufficiently explanatory to make the situation
clear.

(a) Change the example to be `(@samp{2004-2010})' and `(@samp{2004,
2007, 2010})`.

(b) Add text to explain when it's *not* OK to do non-consecutive year
merging e.g. You didn't have a public release (either interm, alpha or
beta), or didn't have publicly available source.

Cheers,
Carlos.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]