Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update License/Copyright to 2025 #1848

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update License/Copyright to 2025 #1848

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

RodrigoVillar
Copy link
Contributor

Goodbye 2024, Hello 2025!

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
Copyright (C) 2024, Ava Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright (C) 2025, Ava Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure why our linter doesn't catch this (probably because the linter runs against the code on master instead of the commit on the branch) but we'd also have to update the headers in the code themselves.

➜  hypersdk git:(goodbye-2024) grep -r 'Copyright (C) 2024' . -l | wc -l
     401

@LitoMore
Copy link

LitoMore commented Jan 2, 2025

This year means the year when the license starts. It is wrong to modify it.

The year of first publication of the work; in the case of compilations, or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient.

See https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/5778/why-do-licenses-such-as-the-mit-license-specify-a-single-year

@joshua-kim
Copy link
Contributor

joshua-kim commented Jan 2, 2025

If we're following that standard, we already already broke it in this prior commit because hypersdk started in 2023 IIRC. With that being said, we don't use a "standard" license (bsd/mit/et al.) and use a proprietary Avalanche "Ecosystem" license so I'm not sure if this same standard applies.

Concretely, the referenced law @LitoMore linked suggests that we should be marking 2023 as the start year irrespective of what license we're using in the LICENSE file, while the license headers found at the top of our sources files would just have their end years updated.

@LitoMore
Copy link

LitoMore commented Jan 2, 2025

BTW, here is the context of why I noticed this pull request:

@RodrigoVillar
Copy link
Contributor Author

For reference, I referred to the following PR for convention: ava-labs/avalanchego#2624

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants