Updated license date to 2022

[IMperiumX]

No description provided.

[kotp]

Confirmation from legal probably required.

[kotp]

We might need to have a range instead of a single date. Copyright exists on original material at the time of creation, but those things that are created after the initial date, then are copyright beyond the first date. For notice of intent of enforcement of rights, then, there may be a need to correctly indicate first publication year. Since these things are not created and published at once, the range makes sense to me, even though I am not a lawyer.

I do not think we should be tossing out the earlier year as that might be deemed not on the up and up, really, since it is misleading. (Perhaps some of this information was created and even unmodified since 2013).

Like I said, I am not a lawyer, and surely not a lawyer that is familiar with the complexities of international copyright. But it does not make sense that only by changing a year, we have extended the copyright of material by another 3 years of material that would have normally come under public domain because of time passing.

[IMperiumX]

Hi Kotp, Here I'm not changing terms of license it self License != Copyright, Copyright on code is renewable if we made material changes to the code and It is not strictly speaking, related to the license.

if we applied a range instead, it would be at the time of creation not the date it was published thought this isn't necessary.

[kotp]

To be clear, I did not state that the terms of license were being changed, only the notice of the copyright. I also did not indicate that licensing is copyright, it is not. The only thing changed on this line is the copyright notice. I am asking to be careful that notice is properly given if we are giving notice at all (It is not required for copyright to be in effect, in my jurisdiction).

I did say "first publication year" but I meant "first copyright event" which would be creation.

[IMperiumX]

Well, thank you for clearing that up. Now i can see that by doing so i you’d be creating an inaccurate copyright notice.

[rpottsoh]

An interesting read, https://techwhirl.com/updating-copyright-notices/

[junedev]

@ErikSchierboom Isn't the LICENSE template something we keep in org-wide-files?

[ErikSchierboom]

@junedev Only for tracks: https://github.com/exercism/org-wide-files/blob/main/tracks-files/LICENSE The reason for that is that non-track repos sometimes have different licenses.

[ErikSchierboom]

Having read the article, it looks to me that we should not be changing the year to 2022. What we could optionally do, is add it as a second date, but we'd need to consider that in a bit more details as we have hundreds of repos and I'd rather not have to manually update them all. Put in other words: do we need to do anything with the license date, or is what we current have sufficient?

[kotp]

I do not think we need to do anything with it, but we might add the year that v3 went online as an additional date, since a lot of new material came in (looking at Concept exercises). I would be concerned with not notifying that some content is copyright at the earliest year, and losing that information in the notice.

[ErikSchierboom]

@kotp I would be okay with that. Would the license text then become:

Copyright (c) 2019, 2021 Exercism

Is that correct?

[kotp]

@kotp I would be okay with that. Would the license text then become:

Copyright (c) 2019, 2021 Exercism

Is that correct?

I believe that is almost correct, and for the reasons stated, as well as the license file acknowledging that it is also a copyright notice at that location.

The only problem is that the 2014 copyright notice was removed at some point, and that should still be there. So, without doing a content review, but in terms of a general overall product copyright, I would probably do:

Copyright (c) 2014, 2019, 2021 Exercism

[ErikSchierboom]

I'm fine with that. @yusufadell could you update using the above suggestion?

[ErikSchierboom]

Closing in favor of #1945