[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Yearless copyrights: what do people think?

On 2/22/23 13:55, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> As a redistributor I find it a good practice to include most possible
> copyright and licensing information provided by upstream authors,
> exactly because we are doing a service for our users

while having copyright information centrally available per package in
d/copyright is definitly a usefull service, is providing the *years*
really a service worth providing?

personally I don't think so: for packages with non-trivial d/copyright,
it's a significant effort to keep the years in sync with the upstream

(and I doubt that all our source packages have accurate d/copyright,
even less so when it comes to the year-information.)

> and it is a slight disservice to omit information that upstream put effort into tracking
> and publishing.

If years would be omited in d/copyright, it's not that the information
is hidden/nowhere else.

Also if I would want to know the copyright information of a certain
file, I'd check d/copyright for a first glance, but then always check
the individual source file, even if it's just to be sure/double check.

I don't think that the "niche" use-case of wanting to know the
year-information (everything else should be in d/copyright anyway) is
worth the (continued) maintenance costs in d/copyright.


Reply to: