Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Removed footer copyright year #829

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 24, 2017
Merged

Conversation

lunny
Copy link
Member

@lunny lunny commented Feb 3, 2017

As the title.

@lunny lunny added the type/docs This PR mainly updates/creates documentation label Feb 3, 2017
@lunny lunny added this to the 1.1.0 milestone Feb 3, 2017
@appleboy
Copy link
Member

appleboy commented Feb 3, 2017

LGTM

@tboerger tboerger added the lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. label Feb 3, 2017
@plessbd
Copy link

plessbd commented Feb 3, 2017

DON'T CHANGE THE COPYRIGHT YEAR
There is really no reason to put the year on there anyway, it just adds more work if you want to update it. You just need to have a notice, having this on git establishes copyright without having to post it everywhere

The copyright notice on a work establishes a claim to copyright. The date on the notice establishes how far back the claim is made. This means if you update the date, you are no longer claiming the copyright for the original date and that means if somebody has copied the work in the meantime and they claim its theirs on the ground that their publishing the copy was before your claim, then it will be difficult to establish who is the originator of the work.

Therefore, if the claim is based on common law copyright (not formally registered), then the date should be the date of first publication. If the claim is a registered copyright, then the date should be the date claimed in the registration. In cases where the work was substantially revised you may establish a new copyright claim to the revised work by adding another copyright notice with a newer date or by adding an additional date to the existing notice as in "© 2000, 2010". Again, the added date establishes how far back the claim is made on the revision.

If you want more information: https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1p9tao/auto_updating_the_year_on_copyright_notices/

There is a lot of information there and: http:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2390230/do-copyright-dates-need-to-be-updated

Sorry if this is not wanted, but this has always been one of my pet peeves wherever I work with this all over the files and people making changes to the copyright when it is not needed, especially with git giving you the date and people not understanding that it is based on the publish date.

@lunny
Copy link
Member Author

lunny commented Feb 3, 2017

@plessbd, I have updated, please review again.

Copy link

@plessbd plessbd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Better but usually I just don't put a date at all

@lunny
Copy link
Member Author

lunny commented Feb 3, 2017

See this page bottom, github also put a date here.

@plessbd
Copy link

plessbd commented Feb 3, 2017

So here is where things get interesting...

What does the copyright notice pertain to?

Since it is being added to every page and content from users is on the page, the copyright is actually deceiving. Unless gitea / github have something that says all the code uploaded is actually being given over to them.

Look at all the google pages, notice they dont have any copyright dates? (at least I couldn't find it)
Look at the difference on http:https://askubuntu.com/ they specifically call out what they are copyrighting

Another good read about this and more:
http:https://hackerboss.com/get-rid-of-templates/
http:https://drbacchus.com/copyright-statements-in-source-files/

@lunny
Copy link
Member Author

lunny commented Feb 5, 2017

So should we remove the copyright year? @tboerger @bkcsoft

@bkcsoft
Copy link
Member

bkcsoft commented Feb 6, 2017

IMO the copyright is bloat. But it depends on what license the theme is released under (not MIT since we're talking design, not code)

@minecrafter minecrafter mentioned this pull request Feb 11, 2017
@tboerger
Copy link
Member

Ok for me
LGTM

@tboerger tboerger added lgtm/done This PR has enough approvals to get merged. There are no important open reservations anymore. and removed lgtm/need 1 This PR needs approval from one additional maintainer to be merged. labels Feb 24, 2017
@lunny lunny changed the title Change footer copyright year from 2016 to 2017 Removed footer copyright year Feb 24, 2017
@lunny lunny merged commit 12e71e5 into go-gitea:master Feb 24, 2017
@lunny lunny deleted the lunny/footer_copyright branch February 24, 2017 08:21
@go-gitea go-gitea locked and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 23, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
lgtm/done This PR has enough approvals to get merged. There are no important open reservations anymore. type/docs This PR mainly updates/creates documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants