Remove years under license header files

[michael-valdron]

/kind epic

Which area/kind this issue is related to?

/area releng

Issue Description

The tasks performed for #1004 should be automated process, this process would run annually at the start of the new year to remove the need to do this manually on a yearly basis.

The copyright years are not required under the license headers: #1240 (comment). Removing the copyright year will make the tasks performed for #1004 no longer needed on an annual basis.

Acceptance Criteria

• Remove years under devfile-web license header file #1241
• Remove years under registry-support license header file #1242
• Remove years under registry-operator license header file #1243
• Remove years under Devfile Library license header file #1244
• Create license header file for Alizer #1250
• Annual automation to update license headers in Devfile API #1252
• Devfile API repo missing license header #1104

[michael-valdron]

Should update acceptance criteria to include Devfile API on completion of #1104.

[thepetk]

Out of curiosity, is this an issue related to alizer too?

[michael-valdron]

Out of curiosity, is this an issue related to alizer too?

@thepetk Yeah this would include alizer too, good catch!

[rm3l]

I just found an article titled Copyright Notices for Open Source Projects from the Legal team on The Source. It mentions:

[...]
We do not recommend inclusion of the year in the copyright notice. Attempting to consistently maintain dates in copyright notices is difficult, time-consuming, and is unnecessary.

So I am wondering if this needs to be automated if there is no need to bother including the year.. Doing it only once should be fine then, I guess. WDYT?

[kim-tsao]

Also to note, if a year is included, it's only the modified file that gets updated with the year it was changed. Untouched files do not need to get updated

[thepetk]

So I am wondering if this needs to be automated if there is no need to bother including the year.. Doing it only once should be fine then, I guess. WDYT?

+1 to use the Copyright Red Hat way as it is also the preferred one inside the source guidelines where it is clearly stated that "inc" and year are not necessary fields for open source copyrights.

I've opened 4 PRs for:

• Devfile Web: [Devtools week] Update license headers devfile-web#95
• Devfile Library: [Devtools week] Update license headers library#182
• Registry Support: [Devtools week] Update license headers registry-support#185
• Alizer: [Devtools week] Create license header doc alizer#26

[michael-valdron]

So I am wondering if this needs to be automated if there is no need to bother including the year.. Doing it only once should be fine then, I guess. WDYT?

+1 to use the Copyright Red Hat way as it is also the preferred one inside the source guidelines where it is clearly stated that "inc" and year are not necessary fields for open source copyrights.

I've opened 4 PRs for:

* [Devfile Web](https://github.com/devfile/api/issues/1241): [[Devtools week] Update license headers devfile-web#95](https://github.com/devfile/devfile-web/pull/95)

* [Devfile Library](https://github.com/devfile/api/issues/1244): [[Devtools week] Update license headers library#182](https://github.com/devfile/library/pull/182)

* [Registry Support](https://github.com/devfile/api/issues/1242): [[Devtools week] Update license headers registry-support#185](https://github.com/devfile/registry-support/pull/185)

* [Alizer](https://github.com/devfile/api/issues/1250): [[Devtools week] Create license header doc alizer#26](https://github.com/devfile/alizer/pull/26)

We should update the issue titles and descriptions to reflect these changes.