This isn't in response to any single email in the thread, just putting my two cents in :)
It isn't quite accurate to say that year of creation/publication is never relevant. The year is relevant whenever copyright assignment is done. After, all, if a corporation (or possibly a non-profit) owns a copyright, it is not expected there will ever be a "death date" to add 75 years to. Instead, afaik (for USA at least -- and I suppose many jurisdictions follow suit), corporate copyright expires either 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever comes soonest. In general, for individual contributions, I agree it is pointless to specify a year. However, it's not always black-and-white. Then again, I believe all suckless development is entirely done with Git these days. So surely the datetime information recorded in each commit makes the question moot? If for no other reason, I would vote for dropping the year simply because it's inelegant to manually track information that Git already records for us automatically. .:AL:.
