misc: rename license header to use Lighthouse Authors

[patrickhulce]

Summary
Ready to go pending approval in upcoming Lighthouse Authors meeting :)

https://opensource.google/docs/releasing/contributions/#copyright states that projects with high volume of external contributions may use "The insert project name Authors" instead of "Google Inc." in the copyright header and supply an AUTHORS file at the root of the repo where contributors may optionally add their name if they wish to be recognized. We already have such a file and contributors are free to open PRs to add themselves if they so desire.

Created with

find . -type f \( -name "*.js" -o -name "*.css" -o -name "*.html" -o -name "*.d.ts" -o -name "*.hbs" -o -name "*.rb" -o -name "*.sh" -o -name "*.json" \) \! -path "./node_modules/*" \! -path "./.git/*" | xargs gsed -i'' 's/Google Inc. All Rights Reserved./The Lighthouse Authors. All Rights Reserved./g'
git checkout master lighthouse-core/test/results/artifacts/artifacts.json

Related Issues/PRs
#10460 (comment)

[connorjclark]

i personally reviewed every file

[connorjclark]

heh, smoke test failed (bytes)

[brendankenny]

LGTM! Should probably also

• update AUTHORS to match new text in https://opensource.google/docs/releasing/authors/
  (Google LLC is probably important, the explanatory text seems nicer, and we shouldn't prompt folks to add an email if they don't want to (even if their email is still in the git log))
• add a note in CONTRIBUTING.md about adding their name to AUTHORS if they want

[brendankenny]

based on this last commit adding it, I assume this is expected? (+23 bytes seems like a weird delta?)

[patrickhulce]

no this was completely unexpected, but given that this test is only run when certain files get touched (and this PR touched all of them), i'm assuming it shifted ever so slightly due to a yarn update at some point.

if we care about being more rigorous here we can try and trace down the bisect and add those files to our set of "changed files" to test on, but personally I don't think it's critical enough.

@connorjclark do you disagree?

[brendankenny]

ah, got it, I assumed this was also something about changing byte length due to the license change, but that's not supported by the file name I guess :)

I'm not so worried about rigor for this PR, but stability is something we should think about for future PRs from folks who didn't write or review the generator for this test file so won't know what to make of a change in this file :)

[connorjclark]

maybe we need a lockfile for scripts/legacy-javascript/package.json