Re: copyright vs. license
John Hasler <email@example.com> writes:
> Thomas writes:
> > It should be every year that the work was published. (If you publish in
> > year N, then modify and publish the new thing in year M, you should list
> > both years.)
> > There is no harm in listing extra years.
> There could be if you do so in a way that could be construed as an attempt
> to fraudulently extend the life of the copyright.
Yes, but not in the context of the original question. Since copyright
now inheres from the work's creation, not first publication, and the
question was "should I list the creation date or the most recent
edit", there is no harm in listing the creation date.
But the real point I was trying to make is that listing extra
*intermediate* days is harmless.