Copyright years

Copyright years

[Richard M. Stallman]

Could people please start the task of adding 2006 to the copyright notices
in all the files of Emacs?  This needs to be done in order to make a release.

Re: Copyright years

[Mathias Dahl]

"Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> Could people please start the task of adding 2006 to the copyright notices
> in all the files of Emacs?  This needs to be done in order to make a release.

Is the following the correct way to write it?

;; Copyright (C) 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

The example is from tumme.el.

/Mathias

Re: Copyright years

[Richard M. Stallman]

    Is the following the correct way to write it?

    ;; Copyright (C) 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Yes--just add ", 2006" to each and every file's copyright notice.

Re: Copyright years

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
> Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:58:08 -0500
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
>     Is the following the correct way to write it?
> 
>     ;; Copyright (C) 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> 
> Yes--just add ", 2006" to each and every file's copyright notice.

Why is this required?  I thought the rules said to only do that for
files on which we actually worked in the year 2006.  Suppose there's a
file that wasn't touched in years--why should we pretend that we did
something there in the year 2006?

I'm asking because copyright issues are tricky, and the rules should
be therefore clear and unequivocal, IMHO.  They should also be uniform
across the GNU project's maintainers.

Re: Copyright years

[Miles Bader]

On 2/9/06, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Yes--just add ", 2006" to each and every file's copyright notice.
>
> Why is this required?  I thought the rules said to only do that for
> files on which we actually worked in the year 2006.  Suppose there's a
> file that wasn't touched in years--why should we pretend that we did
> something there in the year 2006?

Well by adding the ", 2006", the file has been touched -- and it's 2006... :-)

-Miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: Copyright years

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:02:59 +0900
> From: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
> Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> On 2/9/06, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> > > Yes--just add ", 2006" to each and every file's copyright notice.
> >
> > Why is this required?  I thought the rules said to only do that for
> > files on which we actually worked in the year 2006.  Suppose there's a
> > file that wasn't touched in years--why should we pretend that we did
> > something there in the year 2006?
> 
> Well by adding the ", 2006", the file has been touched -- and it's 2006... :-)

Right, why in the world didn't I think about it?  Thanks!!

Re: Copyright years

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:02:59 +0900
>> From: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
>> Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> 
>> On 2/9/06, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> > > Yes--just add ", 2006" to each and every file's copyright notice.
>> >
>> > Why is this required?  I thought the rules said to only do that
>> > for files on which we actually worked in the year 2006.  Suppose
>> > there's a file that wasn't touched in years--why should we
>> > pretend that we did something there in the year 2006?
>> 
>> Well by adding the ", 2006", the file has been touched -- and it's
>> 2006... :-)
>
> Right, why in the world didn't I think about it?  Thanks!!

That change is not copyrightable, as it does not contain creative
content.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Copyright years

[Lennart Borgman]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>   
>>> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:02:59 +0900
>>> From: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
>>> Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>>
>>> On 2/9/06, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>       
>>>>> Yes--just add ", 2006" to each and every file's copyright notice.
>>>>>           
>>>> Why is this required?  I thought the rules said to only do that
>>>> for files on which we actually worked in the year 2006.  Suppose
>>>> there's a file that wasn't touched in years--why should we
>>>> pretend that we did something there in the year 2006?
>>>>         
>>> Well by adding the ", 2006", the file has been touched -- and it's
>>> 2006... :-)
>>>       
>> Right, why in the world didn't I think about it?  Thanks!!
>>     
>
> That change is not copyrightable, as it does not contain creative
> content.
>   
It looks to me like content that is only creative.

Re: Copyright years

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Why is this required?  I thought the rules said to only do that for
> files on which we actually worked in the year 2006.  Suppose there's a
> file that wasn't touched in years--why should we pretend that we did
> something there in the year 2006?

the rationale is: "there" is all of emacs, and each file must not
present a hole in the protection of all of emacs.  this loss of
granularity and precision from previous policy does not go unlamented,
if only for the need to rely on lawyers to know how to share. :-(

thi

Re: Copyright years

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org>
> Date: 09 Feb 2006 05:00:24 -0500
> 
> the rationale is: "there" is all of emacs, and each file must not
> present a hole in the protection of all of emacs.

My problem is that the GNU Coding Standards still have this paragraph:

    This copyright notice only needs to mention the most recent year in
    which changes were made---there's no need to list the years for previous
    versions' changes.

To me, ``the most recent year in which changes were made'' clearly
says that you change the copyright year(s) only when you make changes
in that file.

IANAL, so if these instructions are changed, I won't mind.  I just
want them to be clear and unequivocal, and uniform across all the
packages that are part of the GNU project.

Re: Copyright years

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> IANAL, so if these instructions are changed, I won't mind.  I just
> want them to be clear and unequivocal, and uniform across all the
> packages that are part of the GNU project.

emacs and its maintenance regimen precede GNU, so it is not surprising
that there is policy discrepency.  i will hazard a guess that it will be
the GNU coding standards that will ultimately change to be similar to
emacs' policy, and not the other way around.

thi

Re: Copyright years

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org>
> Date: 09 Feb 2006 19:05:44 -0500
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > IANAL, so if these instructions are changed, I won't mind.  I just
> > want them to be clear and unequivocal, and uniform across all the
> > packages that are part of the GNU project.
> 
> emacs and its maintenance regimen precede GNU, so it is not surprising
> that there is policy discrepency.

Did you see this bit in standards.texi?

    @title GNU Coding Standards
    @author Richard Stallman, et al.

Richard is the maintainer of standards.texi, so I see no place for
discrepancy, only for some oversight.

Re: Copyright years

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Richard is the maintainer of standards.texi, so I see no place for
> discrepancy, only for some oversight.

personally, i have become more tolerant about certain kinds of oversight
(and thus certain kinds of discrepency) as time goes on.  someone should
probably post a patch to standards.texi, so it can be updated sooner.

thi

Re: Copyright years

[Richard M. Stallman]

    emacs and its maintenance regimen precede GNU, so it is not surprising
    that there is policy discrepency.  i will hazard a guess that it will be
    the GNU coding standards that will ultimately change to be similar to
    emacs' policy, and not the other way around.

We already did change the GNU maintenance policies.

(GNU was started in Jan 1984.  GNU Emacs was started in Sep 1984.)

Re: Copyright years

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

"Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> (GNU was started in Jan 1984.  GNU Emacs was started in Sep 1984.)

oops, sorry for the misinformation.  i stand corrected.

thi

Re: Copyright years

[Richard M. Stallman]

    > (GNU was started in Jan 1984.  GNU Emacs was started in Sep 1984.)

    oops, sorry for the misinformation.  i stand corrected.

You might have been thinking of the original Emacs.  That predates
GNU--it was started in 1975.  But it had different maintenance
practices.

Re: Copyright years

[Richard M. Stallman]

    My problem is that the GNU Coding Standards still have this paragraph:

	This copyright notice only needs to mention the most recent year in
	which changes were made---there's no need to list the years for previous
	versions' changes.

This refers to the copyright notice displayed by the program
at startup.

Do you see a problem with it?  I don't see one.

Re: Copyright years

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
> CC: ttn@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:02:28 -0500
> 
>     My problem is that the GNU Coding Standards still have this paragraph:
> 
> 	This copyright notice only needs to mention the most recent year in
> 	which changes were made---there's no need to list the years for previous
> 	versions' changes.
> 
> This refers to the copyright notice displayed by the program
> at startup.

You are right, sorry.  The text I was looking for is in maintain.texi,
and it already says what I wanted to be clear.

May I suggest that standards.texi explicitly says that copyright
notices in source files are covered in maintain.texi, and have a
reference to the right place there?  From experience, people who
submit patches to sources seldom read maintain.texi, since that manual
is for package maintainers.

Re: Copyright years

[Richard M. Stallman]

    Why is this required?  I thought the rules said to only do that for
    files on which we actually worked in the year 2006.

Eben Moglen approved simpler rules which say we can add this to all
the files which make up Emacs.

Re: Copyright years

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
> CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:13:08 -0500
> 
>     Why is this required?  I thought the rules said to only do that for
>     files on which we actually worked in the year 2006.
> 
> Eben Moglen approved simpler rules which say we can add this to all
> the files which make up Emacs.

Then I suggest to mention this in standards.texi.  I'm quite sure most
of the other GNU projects don't use this technique and don't know
about it.

Re: Copyright years

[Richard M. Stallman]

    > Eben Moglen approved simpler rules which say we can add this to all
    > the files which make up Emacs.

    Then I suggest to mention this in standards.texi.

This topic is covered in maintain.texi.  It has been updated
for these new rules.