Re: [dev] bump copyright years?

From: Laslo Hunhold <>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:48:15 +0100

On Wed, 08 Feb 2023 10:17:47 +0000
"Tom Schwindl" <> wrote:

Dear Tom,

> 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 Since a few of our LICENSE files are out of date too, I wonder if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 do. Should we update them and do the
> usual "bump the year" dance? Or should we completely drop them and
> stop worrying. I do not have strong opinions on this, but I think if
> the years are stated, they should at least be correct.
> I like to link to the musl discussion here since they go into more
> depth on the topic. Unfortunately, I think they didn't come to a
> conclusion:
> <>
> The reason why I bring this up is that I think it's irritating, or at
> least inconsistent, if a project is actively developed but the
> LICENSE file states something like "(c) 2010-2015".

I also followed the hype regarding this topic, but found that it was
mostly fluff. Sure you can leave out the years, but then you're leaving
out information.

I find the copyright years to be very helpful: They are meant to be
updated when there has been a _change_ in that timeframe as well. It's
not like you have to bump it everywhere. Looking at the license thus
gives you a short insight in who worked at the project in which
timeframe. A good example is, for instance, the dwm license file[0].

With best regards


PS: One thing you can _really_ leave out or replace with "Copyright" is
the copyright symbol "(C)" or "©". It suffices to say "Copyright 2023
John Doe".

Received on Wed Feb 08 2023 - 17:48:15 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Feb 08 2023 - 18:00:08 CET