[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposed patches
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: Proposed patches |
Date: |
25 Feb 2004 15:50:06 +0900 |
Alexander Winston <address@hidden> writes:
> > > - Copyright (C) 1989, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000, 01, 02, 03
> > > + Copyright (C) 1989, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 2000,01,02,03,04
> >
> > I'm not sure we are allowed to abbreviate the years like that.
>
> Why not use "1989, 1992--2004"?
My recollection is that Richard posted on this list that 2-digit
abbreviations like the above were `OK', but year ranges were not
(according to the FSF's lawyer).
It seems doubtful that a space after the comma or not makes any difference.
-Miles
--
`...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive
that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products
less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.' [The Economist]