This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor...

From: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, hunt at redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:58:33 -0400
Subject: Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor...
References: <20040719213147.AEC014B104@berman.michael-chastain.com>

ac> As with a book, this file contains two things: the "work" (i.e., the tcl ac> code) and the (C) notice. Changes to the (C) notice / terms do not ac> create a new "work", only modifications to the "work" do..

I think the boilerplate text also constitutes part of the work.
I see your position, but I don't agree.  I'm going to add a "2004"
to this file.

Given that the boilerplate "work" is stolen from COPYING and that has a (C) of 1989,1991 why should you not instead be adding those dates (and have those dates through out all of GDB's files)?

Andrew

References:
- Re: [commit/6.2] Fix lib (C)s; Was: src/gdb/testsuite ChangeLog lib/insight-suppor ...
  - From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]