[RFA/doco] Update copyright year in refcard

[Joel Brobecker]

> > The header is easy, I just added 2010.  The text, however, does not
> > use spaces after the comma when specifying the copyright years.
> > I followed the current usage for now, but I can certainly add spaces.
> 
> It's a matter of style.  I like the spaces better, so if you have a
> moment to spare, please go ahead.

OK. Since I'm modifying the file, it was no problem adding the spaces.
I also change the '92 into 1992. Attached is what I checked in for now.

> No, that was voted down by FSF lawyers at some point.  IANAL, so I
> don't know the details, only that RMS told a few years ago that each
> year needs to be spelled out.

OK. I don't mind that for the copyright headers.  That still leaves me
wondering what should be done for the copyright notice in manuals, or
the copyright year printed by GDB, gdbserver, etc. I believe that GDB
does the right thing, and just prints the current year.  It is not
so bad if it's a few years, but it looks a bit silly when the list
spans an entirely line or more... I looked at a few manuals,
particularly the ones that got reprinted, and they seem to follow
a convention where the print one line per reprint, something like:

    (c) 2004 This Press Ltd
    (c) 2006 This Press Ltd
    (c) 2008 A Better Press And Sons Ltd

I'm happy to follow whatever the FSF dictates, but it would be nice
if we could simply have just the current year in our manuals.

> I think we should add them now.  It is okay fixing a mistake such as
> this one; leaving the mistake alone is not a good idea, because it
> makes the file unprotected for the years when it was actually
> maintained.

According to Robert Dewar, who is not a lawyer, headers such as these
are not legally significant. So I don't think we need to worry about
this too much.  But I also think we should fix them whereever we see
an error and we're sure. So I've added 2007/8/9 to the refcard, for
instance. I'm pretty sure for some years before that, but up to when?
I would need to verify in our CVS which, I have to confess, isn't
very appealing at the moment (I've done my share of paperwork for today).

Thanks a lot for the review and the feedback.

-- 
Joel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: refcard.diff
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 1588 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20100101/4ef225d7/attachment.bin>