Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:46:10 +0100
From: Ruediger Meier <>
Cc: "Anthony J. Bentley" <>
Subject: Re: musl licensing

On Friday 18 March 2016, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> Kurt H Maier writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 05:07:55PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> > > The only time copyright years need to be updated in a per-file
> > > copyright statement is when the file has had copyrightable
> > > changes made. Updating the year in a file that hasn't otherwise
> > > changed in that year is spurious (and incorrect, really).
> >
> > Post-Berne Convention there is no legal requirement to display
> > years anywhere.  It's just cargo-cult lawyerin'.
> Post-Berne no copyright statement is needed at all. Marking license
> terms, authors and dates in individual files is strictly a
> convenience factor for those using or reading the code.

Convenience factor? It's simply annoying. The gnu people have devoloped 
a whole machinery to spam these non-sense commits all over any gnu 

$ cd ~/src/coreutils/
$ wc -l `find -name "*copyrig*"`
    4 ./.x-update-copyright
  274 ./gnulib/build-aux/update-copyright
   66 ./gnulib/check-copyright
   19 ./gnulib/modules/update-copyright
   12 ./gnulib/modules/update-copyright-tests
  547 ./gnulib/tests/
  922 total

This is one of many many minor points why reading musl sources is much 
more fun than gnu sources. Please don't give up too many of these minor 
plus points.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.