Updated license date to 2022 #1930
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | ||
| The MIT License (MIT) | ||
|
|
||
| Copyright (c) 2022 Exercism | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. An interesting read, https://techwhirl.com/updating-copyright-notices/ There was a problem hiding this comment. Very interesting read. As I'm reading it, changing the existing year in the license to the current year is discouraged? There was a problem hiding this comment. The reason to change it would be to append a date, really. So if I wrote something, it automatically is copyrighted. If I provide notice, I would provide notice (within that year, preferrably) for that year. If I later modify it, let's say in 2 years, then of course I can provide copyright notification again. However I would probably do so like this: This would be original content, modified content after a couple years, and continued modifications until and into 2015, with a break again until 2019, and again modifications in 2022. Now, some of that content may not be copyrighted from the later years, the life of that is not extended because other parts are new. So it is not discouraged if it is appropriate. But it should be truthful. There should be a reason to add a year or range the copyright, not only that it is a new year. There was a problem hiding this comment. I think especially here, where things are version controlled, we can a bit more easily show which portions are copyright events. So it may be appropriate to add dates, but I would not change the date, outright, only append a range or a new year, depending on change activity. |
||
|
|
||
| Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy | ||
| of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We might need to have a range instead of a single date. Copyright exists on original material at the time of creation, but those things that are created after the initial date, then are copyright beyond the first date. For notice of intent of enforcement of rights, then, there may be a need to correctly indicate first publication year. Since these things are not created and published at once, the range makes sense to me, even though I am not a lawyer.
I do not think we should be tossing out the earlier year as that might be deemed not on the up and up, really, since it is misleading. (Perhaps some of this information was created and even unmodified since 2013).
Like I said, I am not a lawyer, and surely not a lawyer that is familiar with the complexities of international copyright. But it does not make sense that only by changing a year, we have extended the copyright of material by another 3 years of material that would have normally come under public domain because of time passing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi Kotp, Here I'm not changing terms of license it self License != Copyright, Copyright on code is renewable if we made material changes to the code and It is not strictly speaking, related to the license.
if we applied a range instead, it would be at the time of creation not the date it was published thought this isn't necessary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be clear, I did not state that the terms of license were being changed, only the notice of the copyright. I also did not indicate that licensing is copyright, it is not. The only thing changed on this line is the copyright notice. I am asking to be careful that notice is properly given if we are giving notice at all (It is not required for copyright to be in effect, in my jurisdiction).
I did say "first publication year" but I meant "first copyright event" which would be creation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, thank you for clearing that up. Now i can see that by doing so i you’d be creating an inaccurate copyright notice.