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.