🎨🐛 [Frontend] Copyright with current year

[odeimaiz]

What do these changes do?

In order to keep up with the current year in the copyright text, in this PR the frontend tunes the copyright text coming from the vendor's information:

• remove the copyright symbol, if any
• remove the year prefix, if any
• add the copyright and current year

DB:

Frontend:

Related issue/s

How to test

Dev-ops checklist

• No ENV changes or I properly updated ENV (read the instruction)

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[pcrespov]

Some thoughts:

what is copyright date used for?

• the year in a copyright footnote is a crucial piece of information that identifies the creation or publication date of the work, thereby clarifying its copyright status and duration.
• The year indicates when the copyright was claimed or began.
• The copyright duration in most countries is based on the life of the author plus a specific number of years (e.g., 70 years in the US and EU). However, for corporate or anonymous works, it may be a fixed term starting from the date of publication. The year helps calculate when the copyright will expire.

Therefore:

• There is no need to change the copyright to the latest year all the time
• I understand that this provides an easy and fast fix but I think it is a bad practice to override the information provided by the PO in the backend. Some alternatives are:
  • 1. Provide a product.vendor.copyright note as a template string e.g. $(year) ITIS-Foundation is variable but 2024 ITIS-Foundation is fixed year
  • 2. Compose copyright note from vendor fields instead of a having a dedicated entry for it. Therefore we drop copyright and add an optional copyrightYear and if not provided you add the latest.

[odeimaiz]

I honestly don't have a strong opinion on this one, it was reported in the team chat and this was a fix. Shall we leave to the POs?

[pcrespov]

I do not even think this might be an issue if you ask the POs.
I would ask. Write here the answer (and who answered you) and resolve it fast within this PR.

[sanderegg]

would also consider whether that date must be changed. or maybe it should be published date instead.

[GitHK]

This PR might have been generated out of confusion. I remember a discussion about it, but was not aware about the copyright implications.