Hi Werner! At 2020-03-31T17:41:47+0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > This is not the point of view taken by the FSF. To cite from > > https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Notices > > (emphasis added by me). > > To update the list of year numbers, add each year in which you > have made nontrivial changes to the package. (Here we assume > ^^^^^^^
I know. That's why I'm only griping in a commit message rather than hoisting the flag of revolution. :) "The work" (the package) is a useful boundary for copyright purposes. On the other hand, good software design principles militate in the direction of modularity, which produces a sort of tension. If copyrights were things that actually expired in our lifetimes (for works we were alive to witness), it might be easier to see how an expansive interpretation of "work" could be used to unjustifiably assert copyright persistence in portions of works that should have fallen into the public domain. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
