Quoting Peter Pentchev (2023-02-22 14:26:47) > On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 01:55:02PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > Quoting Peter Pentchev (2023-02-22 10:49:30) > > > 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: > > > https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2023/01/08/copyright-without-years/ > > > > > > 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") > [snip useful information] > > 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, and it is a slight > > disservice to omit information that upstream put effort into tracking > > and publishing. > > Wait, I may have been unclear. I did not mean that I want to omit > the upstream copyright years *when they are there*. And, of course, > if upstream does not specify any copyright years, we cannot invent > any out of thin air. So I guess my question was mainly what people > think about dropping the years in the debian/* copyright notice > (packaging files, patches, etc). Your rephrased question seems the same to me - so perhaps I was unclear... It is my inderstanding that when copyright years are missing from upstream source then that is acceptable for Debian redistribution (i.e. not a surprise to me that ftpmaster approves it). It is my opinion that when copyright years do exist in upstream source, then we should list those known-to-us years in debian/copyright (a.k.a. not omit them a.k.a. not drop them), even though we are legally not required¹ to do so (for the same reason as upstream above is not legally required to state copyright at all). - Jonas ¹ Unless some licensing requires listing copyright *years* which from the top of my head I do not recall having seen, but am too lazy to check - also because my interest is not to cut corners most possible but to be as helpful to our users as possible, and copyright years serve a real (albeit cornercase) purpose. -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature