On 2/22/23 13:55, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > As a redistributor I find it a good practice to include most possible > copyright and licensing information provided by upstream authors, > exactly because we are doing a service for our users
while having copyright information centrally available per package in d/copyright is definitly a usefull service, is providing the *years* really a service worth providing? personally I don't think so: for packages with non-trivial d/copyright, it's a significant effort to keep the years in sync with the upstream sources. (and I doubt that all our source packages have accurate d/copyright, even less so when it comes to the year-information.) > and it is a slight disservice to omit information that upstream put effort > into tracking > and publishing. If years would be omited in d/copyright, it's not that the information is hidden/nowhere else. Also if I would want to know the copyright information of a certain file, I'd check d/copyright for a first glance, but then always check the individual source file, even if it's just to be sure/double check. I don't think that the "niche" use-case of wanting to know the year-information (everything else should be in d/copyright anyway) is worth the (continued) maintenance costs in d/copyright. Regards, Daniel