Updates license headers

[DarshitChanpura]

Description

Updates license headers

• Category : Bug fix

Issues Resolved

• Resolves [BUG] Incorrect license headers #1744

Check List

• Commits are signed per the DCO using --signoff

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #1829 (999305d) into main (ac3eca8) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main    #1829      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     60.89%   60.87%   -0.02%     
  Complexity     3216     3216              
============================================
  Files           256      256              
  Lines         18013    18013              
  Branches       3211     3211              
============================================
- Hits          10969    10966       -3     
- Misses         5465     5466       +1     
- Partials       1579     1581       +2     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ic/auth/http/jwt/AbstractHTTPJwtAuthenticator.java	55.81% <ø> (ø)
...mazon/dlic/auth/http/jwt/HTTPJwtAuthenticator.java	85.71% <ø> (ø)
...t/keybyoidc/AuthenticatorUnavailableException.java	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...th/http/jwt/keybyoidc/BadCredentialsException.java	40.00% <ø> (ø)
...byoidc/HTTPJwtKeyByOpenIdConnectAuthenticator.java	94.11% <ø> (ø)
...azon/dlic/auth/http/jwt/keybyoidc/JwtVerifier.java	85.71% <ø> (ø)
.../dlic/auth/http/jwt/keybyoidc/KeySetRetriever.java	76.82% <ø> (ø)
.../auth/http/jwt/keybyoidc/SelfRefreshingKeySet.java	59.85% <ø> (ø)
...ttp/jwt/oidc/json/OpenIdProviderConfiguration.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...ic/auth/http/kerberos/HTTPSpnegoAuthenticator.java	0.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 201 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update ac3eca8...999305d. Read the comment docs.

[peternied]

@DarshitChanpura Any progress on this? I'd recommend, if we are unsure of next steps, close the review until it is in state to review/get feedback and then open a fresh pull request.

[DarshitChanpura]

@opensearch-project/security team, let's get this reviewed and merged and then we can open a follow-up issue to generate new license headers on new file creation.

[peternied]

Taking this change without being sure that we correctly updated all of the files makes it hard to know if this is the correct pull request to merge. I would rather we solved the problem of detecting incorrect license headers first and then rolled out the fix for the improperly documented files.

I believe that OpenSearch already has a process for doing this, can we see if we can adopt it or a similar process?

[DarshitChanpura]

Taking this change without being sure that we correctly updated all of the files makes it hard to know if this is the correct pull request to merge. I would rather we solved the problem of detecting incorrect license headers first and then rolled out the fix for the improperly documented files.

I believe that OpenSearch already has a process for doing this, can we see if we can adopt it or a similar process?

The license headers are updated according to the step mentioned in the bug attached here. I have replaced all the headers similar to this in all the files to match the header mentioned here.

The follow-up to this would to add automated checks i.e. one which you mentioned in the comment, using a groovy task or an alternative in our project which would need more time.

I did try by adding a task using spotless, but that would replace all the license headers with the new one which is not correct, so ended up removing it and would need an extra set of hands in getting this fix through.

[peternied]

The follow-up to this would to add automated checks i.e. one which you mentioned in the comment, using a groovy task or an alternative in our project which would need more time.

Could we add a check for the bad license header to make sure we don't add any more violations like these back in? I don't think we need a 'license header corrector' tool

[DarshitChanpura]

For now I'm checking the starting line of the old license header to see if any files contain it, if so checkstyle will throw violation.

[DarshitChanpura]

The follow-up to this would to add automated checks i.e. one which you mentioned in the comment, using a groovy task or an alternative in our project which would need more time.

Could we add a check for the bad license header to make sure we don't add any more violations like these back in? I don't think we need a 'license header corrector' tool

Done

[DarshitChanpura]

should we update NOTICE.txt?

[peternied]

should we update NOTICE.txt?

I don't think we should modify the NOTICE.txt at this time.