consider removing LICENSE from track-wide files

[ee7]

Currently, this repo has a LICENSE file in the track-wide files. That is, last year, we changed the LICENSE in every track repo to contain:

org-wide-files/tracks-files/LICENSE

Line 3 in f208e7b

Copyright (c) 2021 Exercism

My understanding is that this is bad, because:

1. The main point of the date is to indicate when the oldest code might start to become public domain.
2. The start of the date range is more important than adding the current year - you don't have to append the current year to assert copyright ownership.
3. In general, the current year is not a "copyrightable year" for every track repo.

Therefore the date in each track repo's LICENSE should be specific to that repo, and LICENSE should not be in org-wide-files. Instead, I think we should update every track repo LICENSE to include the year of that repo's creation, and then add the LICENSE to CODEOWNERS so that it requires admin approval to change.

If desired, we could automate appending the current year to each copyright notice when a repo receives "copyrightable changes" in that year. But that's less important.

Additional complication: for older repos, maybe it should be like:

Copyright (c) 2014 Exercism, Inc
Copyright (c) 2019, 2021 Exercism

See also:

• Updated license date to 2022 problem-specifications#1930
• LICENSE: change date in copyright notice nim#304
• https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/09/21/MIT-License-Line-by-Line.html
• https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/why-do-licenses-such-as-the-mit-license-specify-a-single-year

[ErikSchierboom]

I also think that we want to remove the LICENSE from this repo.

[kytrinyx]

Copyright (c) 2014 Exercism, Inc

Additional complication, the Inc only existed briefly in... 2017-2018 maybe? I updated the copyright across the board when that happened, then dissolved the Inc and reassigned all assets, copyright, and ownership to the not-for-profit Exercism.

[ee7]

Additional complication, the Inc only existed briefly in... 2017-2018 maybe?

Ah, thanks.

Any thoughts on what the license files should look like?

then dissolved the Inc and reassigned all assets, copyright, and ownership to the not-for-profit Exercism.

I remember that part, at least. To others: see exercism/exercism#4823