Re: [Groff] [groff] 01/01: In groff source top directory add Emacs settings for most text files.

[Ingo Schwarze]

Hi Bernd,

Bernd Warken wrote on Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 12:40:19AM +0200:
>> Von: "Ingo Schwarze" <address@hidden>
>>> Bernd Warken wrote on Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:03:50PM +0000:

>> Almost all of this commit seems wrong, please revert.

> The file addition seem to be reasonable, why not use them?

Not sure what you are talking about, it doesn't seem to me
as if this commit added any new files.

>> The following files are not UTF-8, bus US-ASCII encoded:
>>
>> BUG-REPORT
>> FDL
>> INSTALL
>> INSTALL.REPO
>> INSTALL.gen
>> MANIFEST
>> MORE.STUFF
>> PROBLEMS
>> PROJECTS
>> README
>> README.MinGW

> Fine, the utf-8 line in the top directory documents can easily be
> removed.  What about the Makefiles?

Looking at
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap06.html ,
my impression is that Makefiles better be US-ASCII
or i see some risk that they may be non-portable.

>> In addition to that, it is widely considered bad style to add
>> annotations suitable only for one particular editor to end-user
>> visible files.

> Many groff source files used this Emacs settings for really many
> years.

Sure, end-users rarely look at source code.

>> Besides, in a new work, copyright is only applicable if the work
>> exceeds a threshold of originality[1].  In a derived work, copyright
>> is only applicable to the changes and additions if these changes
>> and additions exceed a threshold of originality.  Addition of
>> boilerplate text like

> Yeah, I made some documents in copyright 1989-2014 or 1993-2014.

Sorry, i don't understand this sentence.

> This should be changed to only 2014.

Consequently, i don't understand what this sentence is referring to.
Certainly, the copyright year should not be changes to "2014 only"
for any of the files this commit was touching.

>>> +##### Emacs settings
>>> +Local Variables:
>>> +mode: text
>>> +coding: utf-8
>>> +End:

>> appears to me as a textbook example of an addition that is *not*
>> copyrightable, no matter whether you use the "originality" or the
>> "sweat of the brow" doctrine.  Consequently, bumping the list of
>> copyright years in such a case is a misrepresentation of the legal
>> situation - unless you bumped based on some *other*, indeed
>> copyrightable change, but a quick "git log -- FDL" gives me the
>> impression that is not the case.

> So I will change NEWS and ./src/roff/groff/Makefile.sub into the
> only copyright year 2014.

That sounds like a misunderstanding.

Each file should have a list of copyright years.
A year should be in that list if and only if the current version
of the file contains a copyrightable amount of text that was
origininally written in that year.

So the NEWS file clearly needs several copyright years.

>From a cursory look, something like the following list would
seem right to me for NEWS, but i didn't check in detail:
  1993-1995, 1997, 1999-2013

Yours,
  Ingo