Re: Yearless copyrights: what do people think?
On February 22, 2023 9:49:30 AM UTC, Peter Pentchev <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple of years
>(and in some places even earlier), but I started doing it for
>the couple of pieces of software that I am upstream for after reading
>Daniel Stenberg's blog entry:
>And then, a couple of weeks ago, I quietly checked whether
>the Debian FTP team would be okay with that by uploading two NEW
>packages without any years mentioned in the debian/copyright file:
>either upstream or for my Debian packaging. And, lo and behold,
>they were both accepted (python-parse-stages and python-test-stages).
>So how do people feel about this in general, would it be okay for
>me to start doing it:
>a) for other packages that I maintain personally, outside any team
>b) for team-maintained packages (I guess this one might be a per-team
> decision, discussed separately on the appropriate lists)
>(obviously, I'm not asking for permission or anything; apparently
> at least one member of the FTP team is okay with me doing it at
> least for some packages. This is more of a "float the idea, see
> what people think about doing this more widely, not just me")
>Thanks for reading this far, and keep up the great work!
You may be conflating two separate things here. The job of debian/copyright is to document the copyright and license claims. Although there are exceptional cases, FTP Team doesn't normally review the correctness of the claims (an example of an exception is a copyright claim that includes the source that the code was copied from before the copyright claim was changed - yes, this happens). I don't think you should assume acceptance of a package without years implies any particular judgement about if the practice is good or bad.
P.S. Please don't turn this into yet another thread about how annoying having to spend time on debian/copyright is. We know.