Re: Proper Copyright Year in PHP files now an automated QA tasks

Jason wrote:

> I would go for the list, and have some very clear guidance available to
> developers on what a "significant change" is.
> 

It is not as simple as just saying to go for the list.

At the time, and Marcel might confirm this, the list of years was
decided to be too complex to maintain and the range was chosen - also
correct. It was definitely not incorrect as is indicated in the
reference that i posted elsewhere and post below again.

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p03_copyright_notices

The copyright syntax would change, and Marcel has provided examples of this.

There are variations on this of course.

In fact, if the DDF held the copyright and everyone who committed to
core had signed the copyright, then StEgo is correct in that only the
first year of publication need be added there. (Unless there were
significant changes to the file).


The range also helps signify there have been changes in the file and the
last date of those changes. However, to have just 2002, and 2009 is also
misleading in some jurisdictions, so 2002-2009 is more correct given
everyone has signed the JCA and the copyright follows the syntax advised
for websites and software that has regular or continual changes.

Really, i don't care but don't ask me to update them all again:)
But I think we do need to recognize why we have what is there now - and
the fact that it was discussed ad naseum at the time with Marcel taking
final decision (he was managing the JCA etc etc as you recall) based on
correct copyright options that were available.

Jo