in reply to Re: RFC: Test::Copyright
in thread RFC: Test::Copyright
Do we really need this? (ob IANAL but...) it seems to me that by default everything is copyrighted so there is no need to mention it.
I have clarified the issues in my original post.
Also, from the docs, the module tests "That the said default copyright statement has at least one final year that matches the current year". The code seems to be supporting this. Why? If I have a module that hasn't been updated since 2006, why would the copyright mention 2011 at all? Does this also means that a test that passes on December 31st 2011 will stop passing on January 1st 2012? That seems a little extreme, not to mention impolite.
My assumption was that this would only be run by module authors just prior to release. So the default copyright should be uptodate. Individual files only have to match a subset of the default range.