chore: Clean up license text

[ibgreen]

No description provided.

[chrisgervang]

I'd like to move towards using SPDX shorthand instead in our files:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT

Adding the copyright to each file seems unnecessarily adding future work since they can change overtime, even with the year removed.

MIT doesn't have a standard file header, however I'd lean towards adding all past and present (adding Uber's) if we're going to do it.

[chrisgervang]

Formatting suggested by the Linux foundation:

MIT License

Copyright (c) vis.gl contributors
Copyright (c) 2015 Uber Technologies, Inc.

Permission is hereby granted...

The loaders.gl is licensed under the MIT license phrasing is probably fine though since it's specifying among multiple licenses.

[ibgreen]

Adding the copyright to each file seems unnecessarily adding future work since they can change overtime, even with the year removed.

I don't like a massive header in each file, like the full MIT text.

But since people do tend to copy individual files, I think it is nice to have a brief header in each file. I feel that:

• stating the name of the project
• specifying the license
• Adding a minimal copyright.
  This seems like a good amount of information in a minimal amount of copy.

since they can change overtime, even with the year removed.

With the year removed I don't see them changing unless we move to another foundation.

SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT

That looks a bit too technical to me to copy into every file. I assume this is for some tooling perhaps useful to have in root license files?

however I'd lean towards adding all past and present (adding Uber's) if we're going to do it.

Did Uber transfer copyright to OpenJS foundation or did it retain it? The guidance I have seen so far is that we don't retain it, at least not in every file.

[chrisgervang]

I'm onboard with a brief header that includes the SPDX id. Its designed to be human and machine readable, and can be particularly useful in loaders since we combine multiple licenses in the same file - // SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 AND MIT.

As I interpret it, Uber hasn't undone its past copyright.. it just doesn't claim it going forward since the LF transfer. Either way, it's good faith to present it in our root license below ours as other projects do (See Electron in a similar situation). There are no header requirements for every file, so it's up to the project to decide - its fine to keep the copyrights "current" in every file if that's what we decide to do, I just was expressing a personal leaning.

How about this?

// loaders.gl
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT {AND ... }
// Copyright (c) vis.gl contributors
// {Other file-specific copyrights}

[ibgreen]

One reason I thought so was that I saw other projects using

// Copyright (c) OpenJS Foundation.

So we'll have Copyright vis.gl contributors + OpenJS Foundation + Uber, etc.

Also many files have been created post Uber transfer so adding that copyright to all files would also be incorrect.

[ibgreen]

How about this? // SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT {AND ... }

What does AND mean in those identifiers? The syntax gives me a sense that semantics are very specifically defined. I trust it does not refer to dual license setup?

This all gets technical pretty fast. I think a proposal doc for all the repos is better than debating it in PR comments for one of them.

[chrisgervang]

Re: copyright, let's get clarity from the foundation. Robin told me the LF project, which is vis.gl, is the legal entity holding the current copyright, Uber held it for a certain set of years in the past, and rights typically append-only... let's find out our situation.

The AND is documented on the SPDX site. There's a lot of tooling and examples on their site.. we're not required to use this ID but I think it has the benefit of unambiguously documenting, which is a great service to our users.

A proposal sounds good to me too. All of this is something that'll help us graduate out of "incubator" status in OpenJS... that's my goal [see tasks].