[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Copyyear statement astonishing to me

From: Alfred M. Szmidt
Subject: Re: Copyyear statement astonishing to me
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 04:37:22 -0500

   In that case I still dont get the sentence I declared false.

The paragraph you were refering to is for _new_ years, not old ones.
Now you are refering to previous years, that is something different.

   Did you check the two links, where you can see that years are, (ok,  
   not removed but added) where they first where not.

   Like 1990, 1994, 1999, 2001 becomes 1990-2018

>From the GNU maintainer guide:

 You can use a range (‘2008-2010’) instead of listing individual
 years (‘2008, 2009, 2010’) if and only if: 1) every year in the
 range, inclusive, really is a “copyrightable” year that would be
 listed individually; and 2) you make an explicit statement in a
 README file about this usage.

Notice the part "every year in the range, inclusive".  In the above
list, there are gaps, i.e. the work was _NOT_ published in those gaps.
So those years should absolutley not be listed (which they become by
using a range).  If the range had been, e.g.

 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1999, 2001

one could have written it this way:

 1990-1994, 1999, 2001

   That is a common behaviour.

You are misunderstanding the behaviour, what you mentioned should not
be done under any circumstances.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]