>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Pentchev <r...@ringlet.net> writes:
Peter> 3. Now, what about the `Files: debian/*` section of the
Peter> debian/copyright file? The common wisdom seems to be that, if
Peter> only to make it easier to submit patches to the upstream
Peter> project, the debian/* files ought to be licensed under the
Peter> same terms as the upstream source. Now I know that licensing
Peter> and copyright are different things :) So would the Debian
Peter> Project consider it okay for a Debian package to have a
Peter> `Files: debian/*` section in its copyright file that does not
Peter> mention any years? This question is both from a DFSG point of
Peter> view and from a "what would be best for our users" one. And
Peter> does the answer depend on whether the upstream project's
Peter> copyright notices include years or not? (as in, should we
Peter> follow upstream's lead in that, too)
Peter> Note that none of that comes from any "it's so difficult"
Peter> positions; I am actually one of the people who would include
Peter> file-by-file stanzas in the debian/copyright files for
Peter> upstream files with different copyright years :)
I think it is acceptable, but would urge you to include the years
because it is better for our users.
I think two things apply.
1) it helps our users know when something goes out of copyright.
2) As Russ points out, while your copyright is valid in the US even
without notice, certain damage provisions only apply if you have valid
notice including years.
Neither of these are huge deals.
I'd say years should be recommended but not required.
I don't think parity with upstream matters.
I don't think you would have any trouble submitting patches if the only
difference is one notice included years and one did not.
