Hi,
A quick google on "copyright date" gives me this link:
http://www.patents.com/copyrigh.htm
especially the following relevant part:
http://www.patents.com/copyrigh.htm#notice
It is clearly said that you should never omit the oldest date. You may
omit the later one:
"Because of this, it is wise to ensure that nothing in the copyright
notice would mislead the public regarding the end of the copyright
term. If only one year is to appear in a notice, it should be the
oldest year, associated with the oldest of the matter in the work. In
other words, if one must err it should be in the direction of omitting
newer years, not older years."
I hope that helps,
Regards,
Olivier
--- Frans Englich <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Does it matter whether one specifies previous years? For example,
> which one is
> the preferred one of these two?
>
> Copyright (C) 2006 Frans Englich <[email protected]>
> Copyright (C) 2005 - 2006 Frans Englich <[email protected]>
>
>
> Yes, the latter is what people usually do, but I don't know the
> /reason/ to
> it, or if it has any significance.
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Frans
> _______________________________________________
> Kde-licensing mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing
>
___________________________________________________________________________
Nouveau : téléphonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! Découvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.
Téléchargez sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.