Re: RFC: stop doing "grand replace" updates to copyright years

[David Kastrup]

Wol <antlists@youngman.org.uk> writes:

> On 14/02/2023 10:27, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> 
>>> I have proposed before to move to a system based on SPDX before for
>>> the same reason, it reduces busywork that brings no advantage.  And
>>> as it's been suggested before in the thread, the bulk advantage of
>>> accurate/updated copyright years is likely to be somewhere between
>>> small and modest, to be generous.
>> Please bear in mind that LilyPond is a GNU project.  I'm tracking a
>> few other GNU projects (autoconf, automake, bison, coreutils, emacs,
>> gettext, gnulib, m4, mc), and they update copyright notices, too.
>> 
> Did GNU not used to insist on copyright assignment? If they own the
> copyright they are free to change the dates. If they don't ...

Sigh.  No, GNU only uses copyright assignments for specific projects
where the FSF itself is willing to defend the copyright in court.  Most
prominent here are GCC and Emacs.

>>> Like Han-Wen, my own perspective was also informed by many
>>> discussions had at various employers and with various other houses
>>> and bodies investing big money in software in a variety of ways.
>> IMHO, it's simple: Just follow the GNU guidelines.
>> 
> IMHO it's even simpler - is it fraud? (I don't know the answer, but it
> feels like it, and we shouldn't do it without legal advice).

Look, if the FSF has one thing it is lawyers, and it takes legal steps
and sets legal guidelines certainly consulting with lawyers.  So "I
don't know the answer but certainly feel qualified to behave like I do"
is not helpful.

The GPL is used for licensing works _as_ _a_ _whole_, so it is
definitely not fraud to update the license headers in lockstep.

What it does is making it harder to figure out for anybody trying to use
code that actually is older than 90 years after its author's death
whether a particular _passage_ might be lifted out and used
independently of other code of younger origin without someone or
someone's estate having standing to sue for a copyright violation for
the unlicensed use.

There is no obligation for a project to make it easier to use some parts
without license.  The GPL is used for licensing works as a whole.
Copyright notices are put in for the purpose of stopping the excuse "I
thought I could just use this code how I wanted, and how should I have
known otherwise?".

Copyright enforcement is a murky area without a unified copyright
holder, but that situation is pretty common and leads to situations
where only few people can be bothered actually pressing the licensing
conditions (cf Harald Welte regarding the Linux kernel).  That is the
same with LilyPond.

Mouthing off that the practices vetted extensively by the FSF lawyers
are fraudulent is really pointless.

-- 
David Kastrup