1 |
On Fri, 5 May 2017 13:18:58 -0400 |
2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Fri, 05 May 2017 18:55:41 +0200 |
5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > On pią, 2017-05-05 at 10:35 -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
8 |
> > > # Copyright 2017 Gentoo Foundation |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Aren't we supposed to use the full range of years here? |
11 |
> |
12 |
> It applies when something comes into existing. If this eclass did not |
13 |
> exist in 2016, a copyright for that year would not be correct. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> This maybe different for ebuilds, as that could be considered derived |
16 |
> from the original ebuild. First one ever written. I am not sure the |
17 |
> same applies to eclasses, but it might. In that case the year of the |
18 |
> first eclass would be correct. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I guess it is safe to always use the oldest year. |
21 |
|
22 |
It may not be good to use the oldest year. Rather the first year |
23 |
something came into existence. |
24 |
|
25 |
"If the copyright duration depends on the date of first publication |
26 |
and the year given in the notice is earlier than the |
27 |
actual publication date, protection may be shortened by |
28 |
beginning the term on the date in the notice" |
29 |
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf |
30 |
|
31 |
That means if you author something in 2017, and put down say 1999-2017. |
32 |
You are starting at 1999, and not 2017. Losing 16 years for no reason. |
33 |
|
34 |
-- |
35 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |