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

Re: Yearless copyrights: what do people think?

On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 08:20:27AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org> writes:
> > On 2/22/23 14:26, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> >> Wait, I may have been unclear. I did not mean that I want to omit the
> >> upstream copyright years *when they are there*.
> > I know you didn't mean that, nevertheless, it's imho good idea.
> Unfortunately, it's often against the upstream license.
>     Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>     modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>     are met:
>     1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>        notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> and:
>     The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
>     included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

It says you need to do that, yes. It does not say *where* that copyrigh
statement must be.

debian/copyright is wholly a Debian-specific invention. We can often do
whatever we want there and still comply with the copyright license.

It's useful for our users that debian/copyright contains an accurate
copy of the license statement, but I don't see how it would be relevant
for an upstream license.


I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.

Reply to: