Hi all,
I've recently (well, a few days/weeks ago) read quite a few discussions on
a wide variety of mailing lists about whether to remove the range of years
from the copyright notices or keep them. Since a few of our LICENSE files are
out of date too, I wonder if there is a consensus on what to d
Copyright doesn't really expire, except that thing of X decades after someone's
death, because then it becomes public domain.
IMHO you shouldn't need a range.
I've seen at least one best-voted answer saying this on stackoverflow.
The copyright year is the year in which the copyrighted work was created. If
nothing is modified or created in a year, then it is incorrect to suggest
otherwise by adjusting the copyright year.
Three main categories of IP:
Copyright. Applies to creative works. Accrues automatically to the crea
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
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 21:23:45 +
Al wrote:
Dear Al,
> 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 sim
I would also be in favour of removing the dates. For actively developed
software, copyright expiry is a sort of fantasy concept. By the time author 1
has been dead for 70 years, the software has probably had thousands of authors
who remain alive. I only use dates like that to get a rough idea of wh
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:23:45PM +, Al wrote:
> 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.
