Quoting Jérémy Lal (2023-02-22 17:04:01) > Le mer. 22 févr. 2023 à 15:39, Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> a écrit : > > > >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> writes: > > > > Peter> Hi, So I've seen this idea floating around in the past couple > > Peter> of years (and in some places even earlier), but I started > > Peter> doing it for the couple of pieces of software that I am > > Peter> upstream for after reading Daniel Stenberg's blog entry: > > Peter> https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2023/01/08/copyright-without-years/ > > > > Peter> And then, a couple of weeks ago, I quietly checked whether > > Peter> the Debian FTP team would be okay with that by uploading two > > Peter> NEW packages without any years mentioned in the > > Peter> debian/copyright file: either upstream or for my Debian > > > > As Jonas mentions, including the years allows people to know when works > > enter the public domain and the license becomes more liberal. > > I think our users are better served by knowing when the Debian packaging > > would enter the public domain. > > > > Maybe only the first year the copyright was applied is important ? Possibly, yes. My advice is to include upstream stated sane¹ years. Reason for that is that several licenses require verbatim copy of copyright statements. Requirement² is not literal, only verbatim, which I interpret as it's ok to e.g. translate "2001, 2002, 2003" into "2001-2003" but not ok to translate it into "2001" since that is clearly removing some "words". - Jonas ¹ When upstream says 2001-now then only include 2001, because "now" is an insane expression in the context of copyright statements. ² Yeah, requirement is aguably only commonly relevant for source, not for debian/copyright files, but that's a somewhat different topic. -- * 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