License Issue

[furtivite]

Hello, thank you for doing open source. I see that the project is distributed under the Apache 2.0 license, if my memory serves me correctly, you need to specify the authorship in it, and if I decide to use your project in my own, I need to continue distributing the code while maintaining your authorship. I would like to ask you to clarify the authorship on line 190 of the license.

[tidoust]

Ah, that's a good point, thanks for raising this, @furtivite!

For repositories under web-platform-dx, I think [copyright owner] is going to be something generic like "[project name] contributors". I'll prepare pull requests along these lines.

[furtivite]

Hello, @tidoust) Thank you for paying attention to this issue. It seems to me, but I may be wrong, because I am not a lawyer and not a super-pro on Apache License 2.0, which could be indicated simply:

Copyright 2024 W3C Web DX Community Group

«2024», because the repository was created in May 2024, and I don't think it needs to be updated regularly this year.

and the «W3C Web DX Community Group» as authors, because that's what your organization is called. We did the same thing at the Doka Guide (However, our licenses are different).

[furtivite]

BTW, here - https://github.com/web-platform-dx/web-features - you have same thing.

[tidoust]

«2024», because the repository was created in May 2024, and I don't think it needs to be updated regularly this year.

My undestanding is that the year is not that useful in practice, and some projects drop it on purpose (the Web Platform Tests project comes to mind. They use a BSD License but I don't think there's anything specific to the license there).

and the «W3C Web DX Community Group» as authors, because that's what your organization is called. We did the same thing at the Doka Guide (However, our licenses are different).

The W3C WebDX Community Group is where discussions take place. However, there is nothing in the definition of the community contributor license agreement that applies to code ownership.

Or did you mean "organization" as in "GitHub organization"? I believe that notion does not mean much either. Who knows, some of the repositories could move to another GitHub organization over time. Project contributors seem to be a clearer group of people in practice.

BTW, here - https://github.com/web-platform-dx/web-features - you have same thing.

Yes, that's why I used a plural form for "pull requests" ;) Other repositories have the same issue.

[furtivite]

Or did you mean "organization" as in "GitHub organization"?

Yes, I mean GitHub organization (It's just that it's no different in our case). Yes, maybe someday the code will move, then there will be [old owners] + [new owners]?