Pass through template copyright and license to generated service runner classes, as agreed with OSS #387
Conversation
…er classes, as agreed with OSS
rafaelbey
requested review from
pierredebelen,
kevin-m-knight-gs,
akphi,
MauricioUyaguari,
davidharte-gs and
hardikmaheshwari
as code owners
| @@ -1,18 +1,17 @@ | |||
| <#-- | |||
| Copyright 2022 Goldman Sachs | |||
| // Copyright 2022 Goldman Sachs | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have two questions on this, and I genuinely don't know the answer to either one.
First, do we need to keep the previous license/copyright statement? Or does the license/copyright that's part of the template constitute a license/copyright on the template itself?
Second, is 2022 the right year for the copyright? Presumably, people will be generating code from this template in 2023 and later. Should the year for generated copyrights be the year in which the code is generated (meaning the year needs to be templatized)? Or should be the year be the same as the year of the copyright of the template itself (meaning 2022 is correct)?
| @@ -1,18 +1,17 @@ | |||
| <#-- | |||
| Copyright 2022 Goldman Sachs | |||
| // Copyright 2022 Goldman Sachs | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have two questions on this, and I genuinely don't know the answer to either one.
First, do we need to keep the previous license/copyright statement? Or does the license/copyright that's part of the template constitute a license/copyright on the template itself?
Second, is 2022 the right year for the copyright? Presumably, people will be generating code from this template in 2023 and later. Should the year for generated copyrights be the year in which the code is generated (meaning the year needs to be templatized)? Or should be the year be the same as the year of the copyright of the template itself (meaning 2022 is correct)?
No description provided.