Add copyright notice as per required by the OpenJS Foundation

[Relequestual]

Resolves json-schema-org/community#321

[Julian]

The first line of the LICENSE file they don't want to match? Or is this supposed to update both?

[Relequestual]

The first line of the LICENSE file they don't want to match? Or is this supposed to update both?

The line item says add the copyright notice on GitHub, so that's what I've done.
If they want it somewhere specific, they should specify, but to my mind, the readme is the most prominent.

[gregsdennis]

I think Julian's point is that there's a copyright notice in the license already. Is that insufficient? If we indeed need this one, it seems that this one should match the one that's there.

[Relequestual]

Ah I see.
The one we have in the licence file does not match the desired format.

I agree they should match. I think the one in this PR is preferable, and the one in the licence should be updated. From what I read, @Julian would need to approve any modification to that line in the licence file as he authored it.

I guess the sensible way forward is for this PR to update both, and require Julian to approve, in addition to normal requirements.

[Julian]

The only difference (to the format in the OpenJS link) appears to be dropping the year, does it not?

Copyright (c) 2022 JSON Schema Specification Authors

vs

Copyright The XYZ Authors

I suspect that OpenJS folks would simply say "it's fine to leave as is", probably that page is just trying to avoid people making the usual mistake of thinking that the year needs to be continuously updated in the license file (in fact in ours now looking at it, that 2022 is certainly wrong, the copyright extends earlier since this repo has been here for ages, and obviously most of it was written long ago).

I honestly don't think it matters much, but I have 0 objection to dropping the year too.

From what I read, @Julian would need to approve any modification to that line in the licence file as he authored it.

Just to be clear on who has power to do what though, I doubt this -- what the line (in the OpenJS docs) almost certainly means is "don't change the line to the recommended format unless you know you have the right to effectively control the copyright of what you're changing" -- I don't personally, I indeed added that license file (via guidance from legal) but essentially all I did was make explicit what was already the license of the files (but which simply didn't have a full license text anywhere as per that issue).

But I don't personally have any extra rights to change who has copyright over their contributions (i.e. it's not me who wrote the spec, I don't have the copyright, each individual contributor does, though we all are licensed to use/modify/etc. it under the AFL and BSD licenses it's always been under). So if for whatever reason someone thought "Copyright JSON Schema Authors" had a different connotation than "Copyright JSON Schema Contributors" or whatever nuance, I have 0 power there personally in this specific repo.

TL;DR -- to me yeah it obviously seems like these should match still, but I'm not sure OpenJS would care. And even more specifically:

• neutral on dropping the year
• -0 on adding something to the README if it's already in the LICENSE but if for whatever reason OpenJS thinks we should then obviously we should
• strong +1 on them matching if we do add such a thing
• -0 on changing Authors to Contributors since that would complicate whether those two are the same or not, but again OpenJS may have some opinion there

[Relequestual]

Per openjs-foundation/cross-project-council#1155 (comment) I have emailed OpenJS Foundation legal. I'll update with any response.

[Relequestual]

After speaking to a number of people, I'm going to close this PR.
Things that are copyrighted, are copyrighted by default. Adding it to the readme doesn't change that.
If it was added, updating it could be problematic.