Skip Menu |

Preferred bug tracker

Please visit the preferred bug tracker to report your issue.

This queue is for tickets about the Dist-Zilla CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 64803
Status: rejected
Priority: 0/
Queue: Dist-Zilla

People
Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: JAWNSY [...] cpan.org
Cc:
AdminCc:

Bug Information
Severity: Wishlist
Broken in: (no value)
Fixed in: (no value)



Subject: Beginning year of copyright
Currently, overriding copyright_year only accepts integers, so ranges of years don't work. There is therefore no programmatic way to get Dist::Zilla to put copyright (c) 2008-xxxx where xxxx = current year I don't know enough about copyright law to really speculate on whether it makes a difference, but in general, sometimes it's nice to know that the software you're using has been maintained for a long time, and should therefore (hopefully) have reached a certain level of stability. Original discussion on #distzilla 21:01:42 < jawnsy> well, minor thing is it doesn't let you put a starting copyright year, e.g. having "2004-2010" doesn't work 21:01:55 < jawnsy> I guess in theory it's not really needed, so *shrug* 21:02:11 < doy> i think that would be a valid bug report
On Sat Jan 15 16:32:43 2011, JAWNSY wrote: Show quoted text
> Currently, overriding copyright_year only accepts integers, so ranges of > years don't work. There is therefore no programmatic way to get > Dist::Zilla to put > > copyright (c) 2008-xxxx > > where xxxx = current year
May be Dist::Zilla should have another parameter like copyright_history. Dist::Zilla could then generate the copyright statement by doing something like "$copyright_history-$copyright_year" Thus we could get copyrights like: 2008-2011 or 2006,2010-2011. As a bonus, if a team is working regularly, the copyright_history would not need to be updated. It would need to store only the year where a project begun. The copyright range produced above would always be valid. Thoughts ? Hope this helps
I don't think this is going to happen. At best, what is more plausible is that a more complex Software::License-like tool could be used to present this sort of data. I don't think it is required, and I want to keep "legal nonsense" code to an absolute and utter minimum in Dist::Zilla. -- rjbs