Fix license info.

[BigBlueHat]

This may be a bit farther than we want to go...but it is thorough!

The changes here acheive full complaince with https://reuse.software/ from Free Software Foundation Europe. It should also result in better and more accurate per-file license metadata in systems like https://clearlydefined.io/

We don't have to merge all of this, but I wanted to post it on this simple repo to gather feedback on the approach.

[BigBlueHat]

@JSAssassin @TallTed this is a fix for #27. Let me know if you think it's too much (especially wrt to the .license files).

@plehegar this is a simple test suite repo that can stand in for the others as we discuss how to properly express copyright and license claims for W3C repos. No need to review this heavily, but I figured sharing a specific example might be helpful for context.

[JSAssassin]

@BigBlueHat Appreciate the fix! I think this looks good, though I'd defer to @TallTed since I don't know much about license requirements within the w3c org.

[JSAssassin]

@BigBlueHat Just noticed, year 2023 will have to be updated to 2024 in all places. Thanks!

[TallTed]

2023 will have to be updated to 2024

Or possibly to a range, starting from the actual first year of publication, and ending (for now) with 2024 ("to present" is not a valid copyright value).

[BigBlueHat]

Thanks, @TallTed. Running reuse lint on this branch results in:

# SUMMARY

* Bad licenses: 0
* Deprecated licenses: 0
* Licenses without file extension: 0
* Missing licenses: 0
* Unused licenses: 0
* Used licenses: BSD-3-Clause
* Read errors: 0
* files with copyright information: 22 / 22
* files with license information: 22 / 22

Congratulations! Your project is compliant with version 3.0 of the REUSE Specification :-)

@plehegar please let me know if you have any thoughts/concerns.

@msporny this clarifies the license state for this repo. I plan to follow this pattern (and send PRs) for all the other test repos--assuming you feel this is mergable.

Thanks!

[BigBlueHat]

@plehegar one open question is whether copyright of test suites are held by their contributors or by the W3C. This PR does still keep that mixed...a bit. The LICENSE file now says the "World Wide Web Consortium" owns the copyright, but each file still retains the copyright of the original author.

Does membership in the W3C + contributing to a repository owned by the W3C result in a copyright transference (as it would at The Apache Software Foundation)? or is copyright per file retained by the individual contributors and the W3C claims copyright on the aggregate work?

What's here now is the best I could discern from the documentation I've been able to find.