I do think this is a very sensible stance, actually: staying in line with
your surrounding context
I feel is very important and has a strong overriding power.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:27 AM Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> Please bear in mind that LilyPond is a GNU project.
>
[...]
> IMHO, it's
>> 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).
>
> The GPL is used for licensing works _as_ _a_ _whole_, so it is
> definitely not fraud to update the license headers in lockstep.
> [...]
Well said,
Wol writes:
> On 13/02/2023 22:50, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>>> which sounds like exactly the opposite.
>
>> I read it again, and you are right. The instructions say to update
>> each file even if the file itself wasn't changed in that year. I guess
>> the instructions codify what I find annoying
Wol 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
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
On 13/02/2023 22:50, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
which sounds like exactly the opposite.
I read it again, and you are right. The instructions say to update
each file even if the file itself wasn't changed in that year. I guess
the instructions codify what I find annoying in this practice: to
FWIW, my perspective on this is more that we should take it as an act of
periodic maintenance that
all forms of little, mindless busywork should be eliminated from the
group's rituals and routines.
If it's not necessary, don't do it, and to quote Sutter: don't sweat the
small stuff.
The problem
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> If accepting this proposal just means no more grand-replace, I'm
>>> fine with it, but it would seem a bit weird to keep "Copyright
>>> 1995-2023" at the top of all files even in 2025.
>>
>> it is weird, but so is doing the grand update.
>
> Honestly, I don't see
> 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
>> If accepting this proposal just means no more grand-replace, I'm
>> fine with it, but it would seem a bit weird to keep "Copyright
>> 1995-2023" at the top of all files even in 2025.
>
> it is weird, but so is doing the grand update.
Honestly, I don't see anything weird with doing `make
10 matches
Mail list logo
