Chore/update license legal docs

[saudkhan116]

Why we create this PR?

This PR contains the following changes:

• Added a new file LICENSE_non-code file in root level with the contents of the CC-BY-4.0 license
• Updated the contents of "Project Licenses" and "Terms of Use" sections to the CONTRIBUTING.md file
• Updated "Declared Project License" section in NOTICE.md.
• Updated the license header and notices to following readme files:
  • main README.md
  • /docs/*
  • /dpp-backend/*
  • /dpp-tutorial/*
  • /deployment/*
  • /dpp-verification/*
  • AUTHORS.md
  • SECURITY.md
  • INSTALL.md
  • NOTICE.md
  • CONTRIBUTING.md
  • CHANGELOG.md

What we want to achieve with this PR?

There is a mandatory change in licensing and legal documentation from the Opensource governance. The change is described in Release Guidelines Section 7

What is new?

Added

• Added a new file LICENSE_non-code file in root level with the contents of the CC-BY-4.0 license

Updated

• Updated the contents of "Project Licenses" and "Terms of Use" sections to the CONTRIBUTING.md file
• Updated "Declared Project License" section in NOTICE.md.
• Updated the license header and notices to following readme files:
  • main README.md
  • /docs/*
  • /dpp-backend/*
  • /dpp-tutorial/*
  • /deployment/*
  • /dpp-verification/*
  • AUTHORS.md
  • SECURITY.md
  • INSTALL.md
  • NOTICE.md
  • CONTRIBUTING.md
  • CHANGELOG.md

Issue Linked to:

330

[saudkhan116]

Hey, I think it would be better to split each company in your copyright headers to a separate line. Currently you have BMW + Henkel in one and CGI in a separate line. There are also some changes of the year range. You could consider only having the creation date. See the TRG section

Hi, we know this could be better, but just for this change, we need to modify all the files, and there are currently 200+ files.

[matbmoser]

Hey, I think it would be better to split each company in your copyright headers to a separate line. Currently you have BMW + Henkel in one and CGI in a separate line. There are also some changes of the year range. You could consider only having the creation date. See the TRG section

It was agreed to be done like this in the beginning of the project. If we want to split the copyright we would need to change in all the files where the license header is.

If we are talking about changing just the CC-BY then I would see it valid the point.

All that is dpp-verification is BMW + CGI And the rest is BMW + HENKEL + CGI then

[matbmoser]

Hey, I think it would be better to split each company in your copyright headers to a separate line. Currently you have BMW + Henkel in one and CGI in a separate line. There are also some changes of the year range. You could consider only having the creation date. See the TRG section

When you mean creation date we would only have it as 2023 no? No 2023 - 2024 ? Some code was created in 2022 and some code was created in 2023 and some was created in 2024. I can not go file per file changing that, just if it is a really big and mandatory issue.

[matbmoser]

@SebastianBezold I get your point. What do you think about just changing the CC-BY headers and notes with split companies? I don't want to change 200 > files with the Apache license just to split the companies in two.

If the header license is wrong as is defined why nobody told that was wrong before?

[saudkhan116]

Hey, I think it would be better to split each company in your copyright headers to a separate line. Currently you have BMW + Henkel in one and CGI in a separate line. There are also some changes of the year range. You could consider only having the creation date. See the TRG section

It was agreed to be done like this in the beginning of the project. If we want to split the copyright we would need to change in all the files where the license header is.

If we are talking about changing just the CC-BY then I would see it valid the point.

All that is dpp-verification is BMW + CGI And the rest is BMW + HENKEL + CGI then

The license headers and notice sections are now updated for CC-BY-4.0 docs

[SebastianBezold]

Hey, I think it would be better to split each company in your copyright headers to a separate line. Currently you have BMW + Henkel in one and CGI in a separate line. There are also some changes of the year range. You could consider only having the creation date. See the TRG section

When you mean creation date we would only have it as 2023 no? No 2023 - 2024 ? Some code was created in 2022 and some code was created in 2023 and some was created in 2024. I can not go file per file changing that, just if it is a really big and mandatory issue.

Of course you cannot change the creation date. But it would be fine to omit the range. Then you do not need to touch the header each year.

[saudkhan116]

Hey, I think it would be better to split each company in your copyright headers to a separate line. Currently you have BMW + Henkel in one and CGI in a separate line. There are also some changes of the year range. You could consider only having the creation date. See the TRG section

When you mean creation date we would only have it as 2023 no? No 2023 - 2024 ? Some code was created in 2022 and some code was created in 2023 and some was created in 2024. I can not go file per file changing that, just if it is a really big and mandatory issue.

Of course you cannot change the creation date. But it would be fine to omit the range. Then you do not need to touch the header each year.

Yes, you are absolutely right. At the moment, we could let the creation date there and remove the year range from the header for CC-BY-4.0 only.