Update LICENSE.md

[Mitzi-Laszlo]

In response to solid/process#103 and solid/process#155

[TallTed]

- present is not valid in a copyright statement. Also, a copyright statement should include the legal name of the entity which is claiming that copyright.

[TallTed]

Suggested change

	Copyright 2015 - present
	Copyright 2015–2019 {{Solid Project}}

({{Solid Project}} above is a placeholder. Perhaps a "Solid Foundation" is needed?)

[kjetilk]

To the extent that I am knowledgeable enough on this topic (arguably, I'm not), I think I'm with @TallTed on this one, it doesn't look like a valid statement to me.

FWIW, @jonassmedegaard asked me to enumerate the years I assert copyright for (example, to be in line with Debian's policies as he was packaging my modules for Debian. I would think Debian's guidelines are sound for us as well.

The important part of copyright for our project isn't to assert our rights, it goes all the way back to the Berne Convention they are regulated without us saying anything. We are including a copyright statement to grant rights, and without users have to assume copyright law applies in full, i.e. they can't use it.

That's why they need to be able to rely on this being correct, and so I would like to hear if it has been reviewed by someone who knows this stuff.

[jonassmedegaard]

For the record, it is not (specific, explicit) Debian policy that drove me to kindly request that Kjetil declare his copyright statements differenty. What Debian policy explicitly dictates is that distributed projects must be "Free software" (with a definition of what that means - a definition which later was directly borrowed for the definition of "Open Source").

How to declare that a project is "Free software" has no simple rules, but my 20 years of experience sifting through what authors and copyright holders have scrippled draws patterns of common style in declaring it, and my conversations with lawyers and law enthusiasts have enlightened me why how that common style fit well with the purpose: To grant permissions - better known as licensing.

Please when you want to share works with the commons, do it explicitly and in the common style:

1. State the year the project a received substantive creative contribution, and the name and unique identifier of the copyright holder for that contribution.
2. State which license the copyright holder grants.

Makes sense to merge multiple copyright holder entries together, to form consecutive and/or non-consecutive ranges of years for same copyright holder.

If you try be creative with above, then you risk loosing out on some opportunities for reuse.
Concretely, when you state copyright holder information not only for factual past contributions but also speculative "current" ones, you weaken the trust in those statements, making it harder to redistribute the work.

[csarven]

If I'm not mistaken, the MIT license is generally intended for Solid project's assets going forward. FWIW, solid/specification uses the MIT license. I'd suggest to stick to MIT for the case here as well.

IANAL: going from CC0 to MIT for this repo/spec/documentation is a minor change and as far as I understand, they're compatible. Perhaps the most important change here is the Copyright inclusion. Not sure about who is the (legal?) copyright holder.