BSD2_Header templates doesn't match opensource.org reference

[crdelsey]

The reference license at opensource.org uses the phrase COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS whereas the license template in the ament_copyright tool uses the phrase COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS.

This will cause the copyright linter to fail any source using the standard license text.

[dirk-thomas]

The current snippet matches the copyright notice present in several hundreds of files in ROS 2 (and 1) packages. So changing this from one to the other is not an option.

It would be great making the linter more flexible though to accept both variations. Any PR towards this would be highly appreciated.

[crdelsey]

I kind of figured that would be the answer. I noticed that https://spdx.org lists the phrases of the licenses that are allowed to change while still being considered the same license. I figure that would be a good starting point.

[cottsay]

Would it be acceptable to simply add another set of templates which matches the opensource.org phrasing and formatting?

The only other solutions I can see are either to curate a set of rules where phrases could change, or introduce an expression that we could embed within the templates that could match multiple wordings or phrases. Either solution sounds much more involved than just maintaining multiple forms as separate templates.

[dirk-thomas]

Would it be acceptable to simply add another set of templates which matches the opensource.org phrasing and formatting?

Sounds good to me too.

[crdelsey]

I'm ok with that solution. I think I've got other license headers that will need more, but that's a separate issue.

[Blast545]

#205 should close this issue

[tfoote]

I would not close this with #205 but think that we should remove those entries. We should not have an unused license in our linters lest it be used by someone to make their linters pass. The original author doesn't know where it came from: ros2/geometry2#222 (comment)

[Blast545]

@tfoote The problem is what dirk-thomas addressed some time ago:

The current snippet matches the copyright notice present in several hundreds of files in ROS 2 (and 1) packages. So changing this from one to the other is not an option.

Removing that license would cause problems with old code, that's why the 'bsd2' license shouldn't be changed, and instead a new one was added.