Re: Copyyear statement astonishing to me

[bendikker]

Maybe I am worried because I see a relation as that sentence and that  
wrong use.

Maybe that sentence is causing people to interpret wrong.

As in the example files, that is a GNU package.

That is coreutils.



Quoting "Alfred M. Szmidt" <address@hidden>:

> 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.




-------------------------------------------------

ONLY AT VFEmail! - Use our Metadata Mitigator to keep your email out of the 
NSA's hands!
$24.95 ONETIME Lifetime accounts with Privacy Features!  
15GB disk! No bandwidth quotas!
Commercial and Bulk Mail Options!