Re: Run grand-replace to update copyright

[Werner LEMBERG]

>> Looks like a mistake in the conversion script.  `2012' should be
>> changed to `2012-2014', of course.
> 
> The purpose of listing the year is to give an indication of when the
> copyright will expire.  If the last copyrightable change to a
> document was in 2012, but the notice says 2014, then you're
> effectively claiming copyright for two years longer than you're
> actually entitled to.  That's why it's not allowed (and invalidates
> the whole notice).  "2012-2014" has the same problem, since it says
> (incorrectly) that some part of the document will still be under
> copyright after 2012+N.

AFAIK, this is not correct.  We have to make a distinction between
singular files and files that a part of a package.  What matters for
us is the *package* copyright.  Theoretically, no files in a package
needs a copyright notice at all if there is a central copyright notice
– consider some binary stuff where it isn't possible to add a
copyright notice at all.  As soon as a file becomes part of a package,
it inherits the packages copyright.  So if just a single file of a
package gets changed, the copyright year in the package's copyright
notice must be adjusted, and consequently this gets inherited by all
files of the package, even if there was no change.

>> You've misread, I think: The guide doesn't say `file' but `package'.
>> In general, this means that the copyright of *all* files of the
>> LilyPond package should be updated.
> 
> It might make sense to update them all if they're all meant to claim
> copyright on LilyPond as a whole, but I don't think that's the case
> right now.  Some of them list different authors, for example.

Basically, you are right.  However, there is a silent agreement that
if someone contributes to lilypond, the contribution becomes part of
the lilypond package, so the maintainers might adjust the copyright of
the package and thus that of individual files.  Of course, this
doesn't cover the change of the license itself.

If this silent agreement gets ever violated, we have to follow
standard FSF procedures (since lilypond is an official GNU package),
asking all contributors to sign copyright assignments to the FSF,
which would be extremely tedious...


    Werner