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

20-02-2009 11:30]:jojodee wrote:

> 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.
>
The range was chosen as a convenience only *after* i ran routines over 
the repository to verify that, for example 2000-2004 actually was 
correct and meaning 2000,2001,2002,2003,2004. This is the code part 
from the past.

The RFC part (RFC 44) should explicitly explain the above difference. 
Now it has "list of years" in the text and a range in the php header 
example, which leads to confusion on a topic which is already 
something nobody wants to think about too long (well, except lawyers i 
guess)

Ranges are not incorrect as such, but they are often *used* incorrectly.

> 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.
"2002,2009" and "2002-2009" are two totally different things and one 
is not better than the other or more correct. There either are 
copyright confirmations in 2 or in 8 years, but not both.

What happens in practice is that people dont know about the changes 
and choose 'the bigger range thing'.


> Really, i don't care but don't ask me to update them all again:)
No need for that.

> But I think we do need to recognize why we have what is there now
Agreed, but not for many more messages I hope :D The thread is getting 
mighty long.

marcel