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.
--
w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}
I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.
Reply to: