Re: Copyright years

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

> Why is this required?  I thought the rules said to only do that for
> files on which we actually worked in the year 2006.  Suppose there's a
> file that wasn't touched in years--why should we pretend that we did
> something there in the year 2006?

the rationale is: "there" is all of emacs, and each file must not
present a hole in the protection of all of emacs.  this loss of
granularity and precision from previous policy does not go unlamented,
if only for the need to rely on lawyers to know how to share. :-(

thi