"2002, 2005"?

Discussion of general topics related to the new version and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
Forum rules
Discussion of general topics related to the new release and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
Locked
Virtuality
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 6:35 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

"2002, 2005"?

Post by Virtuality »

Just wondering the reason for this. I've always seen this everywhere, in the files and in the copyright notice.

Why isn't it "2002-2005"? phpBB has existed 2003 and 2004 too, right? :P And released versions during the time too.

phpBB is the only place where I've seen the use of "," instead of "-", and I'm just curious for the reason.
"phpBB3 is never late. Nor is it early. It arrives precisely when it means to."

User avatar
SHS`
Registered User
Posts: 1628
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 9:13 am
Location: The Boonies, Hong Kong
Contact:

Re: "2002, 2005"?

Post by SHS` »

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Year.28s.29_of_copyright] WikiPedia.org: Year(s) of copyright[/url] wrote: The year(s) of copyright are listed after the © symbol. If the work has been modified (i.e., a new edition) and recopyrighted, there will be more than one year listed.
Jonathan “SHS`” Stanley • 史德信
phpBB™ 3.1.x, Bug/Security trackers
phpBB™ Bertie Bear 3.0 — prosilver Edition!Asking Questions The Smart Way

Virtuality
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 6:35 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: "2002, 2005"?

Post by Virtuality »

Well, the work has been modified during 2003 and 2004 too.
"phpBB3 is never late. Nor is it early. It arrives precisely when it means to."

User avatar
dhn
Registered User
Posts: 1518
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 8:10 am
Location: Around the corner
Contact:

Re: "2002, 2005"?

Post by dhn »

Virtuality wrote: Well, the work has been modified during 2003 and 2004 too.
No new edition was released.
Image

Virtuality
Registered User
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 6:35 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: "2002, 2005"?

Post by Virtuality »

The 2.0.x versions was. But they don't count? And then theoretically, the 3.0 should only read 2005 since it was (going to be) released during 2005, and nothing else.
Sure, developed during 2004 and 2003 too, but phpBB2 was probably developed before 2002 too, right?

To me, but that's just me, it would make the most sense to put:
"the-year-when-phpBB1- was-released - 2005" in the copyright notice.
"phpBB3 is never late. Nor is it early. It arrives precisely when it means to."

Graham
Registered User
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: UK

Re: "2002, 2005"?

Post by Graham »

phpBB 3.0 will contain some code from 2.0 (released in 2002) and new code from 3.0 (released in 2005), thus they are the years that get listed.

2.0.x versions do not count as releases - the line is feature frozen and they are bug/security fixes only.
"So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish"

Graham
Eeek, a blog!

balding_ape
Registered User
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:59 pm

Re: "2002, 2005"?

Post by balding_ape »

There is of course also the issue that your work gets copyright, no matter if it carrys a "c" or dates.

stickman10
Registered User
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:59 pm

Re: "2002, 2005"?

Post by stickman10 »

Scanning through all the files in one of the CVS downloads, I found files that were created in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, therefore, the CVS version should have a copyright date of 2002-2005.

Also, while on the subject of copyright dates, every admin page (at the bottom) reads "Powered by phpBB 2.1.2 © 2002". I find that funny because this is a CVS version 3.x (or whatever version it is) and the copyright date should include 2005.

User avatar
psoTFX
Registered User
Posts: 1984
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm
Contact:

Re: "2002, 2005"?

Post by psoTFX »

How many times?! There is no absolute legal requirement to include any date. Heck there is no legal requirement to saying "Copyright" or place the enclosed C on a page. All original works are by their very nature copyrighted.

When dates are given it is normal to note the date of first publication, and any subsequent dates were significant changes were made. Let me reiterate ... there is nothing to be "gained" by incrementing a copyright date. Wholly original works are copyright from first publication dates ... you don't gain "extra" years of protection by bumping up or adding a year.

If there is a copyright/patent/artistic licences lawyer who wants to tell me different ... fine ... till then I'll believe what I've been told/read

Thanks.

Locked