[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bad copyright years
From: |
Glenn Morris |
Subject: |
Re: bad copyright years |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:51:12 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) |
Kenichi Handa wrote:
> The files who have copyright year before 1997 were released
> every year as part of Mule package.
Ok. Sorry for the lecture you did not need, then.
> They are integrated into Emacs in 1997. And Emacs were released in
> 1997, 1998, and 1999. So, perhaps I didn't have to add the year
> 2000, but I thought that having that year was not harmful. And
> actually most files are modified in 2000 too.
I _think_ it does not matter if the files were modified that year, if
those modifications were not released that year (though I agree with
you that this is not a huge issue).
The current maintain.texi does not seem to make it clear what rules
apply if you are not using a public repository, as in 2000.
- Re: bad copyright years, (continued)
- Re: bad copyright years, Kim F. Storm, 2006/12/10
- Re: bad copyright years, Glenn Morris, 2006/12/11
- Re: bad copyright years, Richard Stallman, 2006/12/08
- Re: bad copyright years, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/12/09
- Re: bad copyright years, Richard Stallman, 2006/12/09
- Re: bad copyright years, Glenn Morris, 2006/12/09
- Re: bad copyright years, Kenichi Handa, 2006/12/12
- Re: bad copyright years, Richard Stallman, 2006/12/13
- Re: bad copyright years, Glenn Morris, 2006/12/13
- Re: bad copyright years, Kenichi Handa, 2006/12/13
- Re: bad copyright years,
Glenn Morris <=
- Re: bad copyright years, Richard Stallman, 2006/12/14
Re: bad copyright years, Richard Stallman, 2006/12/01
Re: bad copyright years, Richard Stallman, 2006/12/01