Ok; last message, also messaged licensing:
I think there is confusion about license and copyright and publish.
At least, I myself am somewhat confused.
Also what I experienced is that sometimes it is almost undone
deciding needed info, that takes too much time.
In the sense of unreadable code, that would make non-free.
----
Parts of the gnu standards:
I think here is meant a copyrightable part?
;otherwise I think it is not necessary to mention?:
I think that you still claim copyright on
something that is not yours by doing so:
6.4.1 Non-FSF-Copyrighted Package
On the other hand, when merging some public domain code into an
existing file covered by the GPL (or LGPL or other free software
license), there is no reason to indicate the pieces which are public
domain. The notice saying that the whole file is under the GPL (or
other license) is legally sufficient.
----
The following I think is a bad advice, often I find years when
nothing copyrightable was done, probably there are also who made
an automate for it, I would advice only to update the package notice:
6.5 Copyright Notices
It is recommended and simpler to add the new year to all files in the
package, and be done with it for the rest of the year.
----
I propose to make require a central place, because if spread
all these info makes a package needed info hard to understand:
Now the GNU standards does not require a central place
(like a directory with a standard name) where you collect
all the info that is required to decide about copyright
publish dependencies etc. for a package.
This is what I think:
If you take a copyrightable part of a file, then that parts (last)
copyright year is valid.
One copyrightable addition to a file causes the whole
file to have a new copyright year.
One copyrightable addition in a whole work causes
the work as a whole to have a new copyright year.
A valid license is valid for the copyright year(s) it was applied.
If possible: If that valid license varied external then all valid
versions of that license
apply from of the year they were valid for that copyright year(s).
This I don't really know:
You may also have to know in what year(s) the copyright year(s) was/were
first published if applicable.
On 04-04-20 18:46, Ben Tris wrote:
This is what I think:
Every package should have a directory with license and licence and/with
copyright statement(s)
that covers the whole work.
Each file should have their own copyright year(s).
It is not wise to make automatic beginning each year with inserting a
new copyright year.
signature.asc