On 29 January 2024 12:31:44 GMT, Harald Sitter wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:49=E2=80=AFAM Carl Schwan wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 29, 2024 10:43:04=E2=80=AFAM CET Harald Sitter wrot= e: > > > do we really need it? > > > > > > systemd for example only has a spdx license header, resulting in muc= h > > > tidier file headers=2E > > > > > > I entirely fail to understand why we need to slap a FileCopyrightTex= t > > > on files=2E The copyright surely applies whether or not I put the > > > FileCopyrightText there=2E The list is also just about always > > > incomplete, further calling its use into question=2E Not to mention = that > > > it is annoying book keeping of information that is already available > > > in git=2E > > > > > > Can someone shed some light on this? > > > > The reuse FAQ has an entry about why only keeping the copyright inform= ation in > > git is a bad idea: https://reuse=2Esoftware/faq/#vcs-copyright >=20 > Yes, that makes no sense to me=2E Whether I put my copyright stamp on a > file or not has no impact on whether I actually have copyright=2E That > is to say when someone doesn't add their stamp they would still be a > copyright holder=2E Which means that unless everyone who ever touched a > file puts their stamp on it, which is something we didn't and don't > enforce, the list is inherently incomplete and by extension useless > =2E=2E=2E So, authorship data is in fact more relevant here because you = get > all would-be copyright holders, not just the ones that bothered to put > their stamp on the file=2E No? =2E=2E=2E Obviously the authors list may = still > be incomplete but I'm willing to put money on the fact that 9/10 it is > more complete than whatever the license headers proclaim to be the > case=2E Although copyright only applies to non-trivial changes, so the actual set = of copyright holders is likely to lie somewhere between the authors list in= the headers and the full list provided from git commits=2E -- David Jarvie KAlarm author, KDE developer