Re: [Savannah-hackers-public] Two question which I have to pass on

[Noah Slater]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 03:04:25PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Noah Slater wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 02:23:27PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > >   Don't delete old year numbers, though; they are significant since they
>
> Just to be pedantic, I didn't write that but was only quoting it from
> the Copyright-Notices file that we were discussing.
>   http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html

Sure, I didn't mean to imply that.

> As I understand it yes it would go something like that but perhaps
> without all of the guessing about which year is which year.  Aren't
> the old distributions of software projects usually organized a little
> better than that?  But in any case as I read it these are only a hint
> providing a clear paper trail for legal purposes.

Given how well organised the GNU release libraries are, I don't see the need for
this hinting in the source files. The FTP archives and mailing lists provide
more than enough context for people to find older releases.

> The full license is already quite long.  Incrementally increasing it
> in the areas that we see the full list of dates doesn't seem too much
> of a hardship.

The license is, but the boilerplate text is not.

> The long list of dates isn't required to be seen by the user (e.g. in such
> locations such as --version output).  So this shouldn't be a problem of
> consuming too much screen real estate.  Sure when looking at a source file we
> need to page past the file's license statement.  But we already have to page
> through the file's license statement.

I think it bloats a boilerplate which is already long enough.

> Perhaps you could provide an example where the full list
> of dates creates a problem?  I am having a hard time thinking of one
> and could benefit from the example.

My problem with the advice is that theoretically, we will end up with:

  Copyright (C) 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989,
                1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
                2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
                2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019,
                2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029,
                2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 2038, 2039,
                2040, 2041, 2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049,
                2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054, 2055, 2056, 2057, 2058, 2059,
                2060, 2061, 2062, 2063, 2064, 2065, 2066, 2067, 2068, 2069,
                2070, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077, 2078, 2079

                Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Or even more comically:

  Copyright (C) 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989,
  1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,
  2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015,
  2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028,
  2029, 2030, 2031, 2032, 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2037, 2038, 2039, 2040, 2041,
  2042, 2043, 2044, 2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049, 2050, 2051, 2052, 2053, 2054,
  2055, 2056, 2057, 2058, 2059, 2060, 2061, 2062, 2063, 2064, 2065, 2066, 2067,
  2068, 2069, 2070, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077, 2078, 2079 Free
  Software Foundation, Inc.

This is totally absurd!

> I am not emotionally attached to this issue but curiousity has me
> discussing it.  For a change in the wording of the lawyer's guidelines
> I am certainly not the person to convince.

Sure, I understand. Who would be the right person to convince? I mentioned this
to Karl in the past and he said something very similar but I never bothered
followed it up. As it was under discussion on this list, I thought I might as
well mention it again.

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater