Update LICENSE Year #19
Conversation
| @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ | |||
| MIT License | |||
|
|
|||
| Copyright (c) 2019 ReviewNB | |||
| Copyright (c) 2019 - 2020 ReviewNB | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we really need an end date on a copyright? I believe the single year indicates the first year in which the work was published and covers the copyright then onwards.
My issue with this is -- what if we forget to update the notice next year? Do we loose copyright for work done in 2021 until this is updated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What I have studied so far is Copyright should be up to the date of publishing.
So, if it's a static content (such as the Times article you linked to), it should probably be statically copyrighted.
If it's dynamically generated content, it should be copyrighted to the current year.
Another Approach to this is what used by Facebook(Prophet License). They don't mention Dates in the license.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Quoting from https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1522/what-should-be-written-in-mit-license-year-full-name
Some people like to put in a range of years (i.e. 2015-2020) - this isn't necessary.
I also spoke to our lawyer and a single year is enough to enforce our copyright. So I'm closing this PR. Thank you for thinking about it though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, I'll keep that in mind. Kudos to you for such an amazing project.
It fixes the LICENSE. This will keep the copyright to the original developers who have worked hard in 2020 as well.