Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:46:10 +0100 From: Ruediger Meier <sweet_f_a@....de> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Cc: "Anthony J. Bentley" <anthony@...be.name> 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 project: $ 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/test-update-copyright.sh 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. cu, Rudi
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.