4 ms·
> but it doesn't hurt to do Except it does. It requires an engineer to maintain the dates, and the company to audit that the dates are correct. It directly in
by maccard 4y ago
> but it doesn't hurt to do
Except it does. It requires an engineer to maintain the dates, and the company to audit that the dates are correct. It directly interferes with source control ("updated copyright" was the bane of my existence when trying to git-bisect a few years ago).
- rocketbop 4y agoSurely it’s straightforward to use templating and always pull the year from a date library. No changes to source control needed. Edit: as the article mentions open source documentation it’s possible the repo itself is what needs the year, and there’s no way around hardcoding it in the included licence.
- JohnFen 4y agoThat's how I've always done it. I'll probably continue to include copyright notices and years regardless of legal necessity, but I've never lost sleep over it or put a lot of effort into it. It just seems like a "does no harm, and may clarify things" sort of deal. This is pretty much the advice of my attorney. "It's not legally required, but I can imagine situations where it could be useful anyway. If it doesn't cost you anything, why not include it?"