Re: Finish updating copyright years

[Kim F. Storm]

address@hidden (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

>>>>>> "Kim" == Kim F Storm <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Kim> address@hidden (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
>>> Copyright (c) 1994, 2005 Randal L. Schwartz
>>> 
>>> without any new creative content, because that would be artificially
>>> extending the date of original publication, and that's not legal.
>
> Kim> IIUC, the argument is that the copyright applies to the Emacs release
> Kim> as a whole, and *Emacs* has definitely changed in 2005.
>
> Darn it, stop picking a fight with me. :)

You started it ;-)



> That same argument would have applied to my books then, as well, but I
> was given precisely the opposite advice.  The *entire* book hasn't
> changed, just *some* of the words and pages.  Same is true for emacs:
> you didn't rewrite it from scratch between 2004 and 2005: some of the
> code is *identically* the same.  Therefore, it's not a *new* creative
> act... but a composite of existing creativity *plus* new creativity.

But take emacs/src/xdisp.c as an example.  It is 23750 lines of C code.

Now, suppose I changed 25 lines in that file.  So only a fraction of
the file is new creativity, but still I would update the copyright to
say (C) 2005.

How is that different from you adding some new material to your book?

We can argue about this issue forever, but if our lawyer says the
policy is ok, I'm ok with that.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk