Re: [dev] bump copyright years?

From: Tom Schwindl <>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 12:18:39 +0000

Hi Laslo,

On Wed Feb 8, 2023 at 5:48 PM CET, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> 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 Since a few of our LICENSE files are out of date too, I wonder if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].

I like your reasoning and certainly agree with it. Thanks!
As I'm reading the other replies, I did not mean to start some sort of revolution
against copyright years. I was simply interested in opinions since I haven't seen
the topic come up here before.
I seem to always start bikeshedding discussions :-)

Best Regards,
Tom Schwindl
> With best regards
> Laslo
> 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".
> [0]:
Received on Thu Feb 09 2023 - 13:18:39 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Feb 09 2023 - 13:24:07 CET