Updating all files to link to solidproject.org

[megoth]

Allowing us to archive github.com/solid/solid, as it isn't maintained anymore. (Per the discussion in #256, and the Solid Team's approval of archiving this repo https://www.w3.org/community/solid/wiki/Meetings#2020-09-02).

Note that I did this quickly, so all messages say the same. If we want to improve it, we could point the various documents to their respective resources, but I don't have time to do that research right now. In any case, wanted to create this PR to show how we could update this repo before archiving it.

Also, to note, @timbl, @rubensworks, and @csarven need to agree with Solid Team's decision on archiving this repo before moving on. For that reason, I'm requesting them as reviewers in this PR.

[justinwb]

Thanks for doing this @megoth. Small wording change suggested (since the plan as I am aware is to archive this repo):

This is an archived, legacy repository that is no longer actively maintained. Please visit the [=official Solid website=] instead.

[megoth]

@justinwb I've changed the text, hope it looks good now 😸

Btw, wasn't sure if CONTRIBUTORS and LICENSE should be changed, but thought it would be preferrable to change all text files in the repository than to leave some out.

[melvincarvalho]

-1 & Formal Objection

This repository which has 7500 stars, compared with the proposed solidproject repo which has 20 stars. It is the flagship repo of the project. A lot of work was put in to making this repo what it is, and popularizing it

The minutes just say "Solid Team" present, and has no real minutes. Transparency, not so much

This is the flagship repo of the project, and the website should augment it

There are also many issues that are unaddressed that people have taken the time to raise. They should not be dismissed en masse. Why not put out a call for maintainers, and help on this repo. I dont have time to do this right now, but it's possible that I could in future

The website does not obsolete this repo, and therefore, it should not be archived, at this time

cc @timbl @johnbizguy

[kidehen]

I am bit late to this conversation.
Question:

Why would you deprecate a 7.5K star project ( github.com/solid/solid) for a newer one with less history and star rating?

Wouldn't it better to have two associated projects, in the absolute worst case?

/cc @timbl

course of PR has changed

[justinwb]

This repository which has 7500 stars, compared with the proposed solidproject repo which has 20 stars. It is the flagship repo of the project. A lot of work was put in to making this repo what it is, and popularizing it

Why would you deprecate a 7.5K star project ( github.com/solid/solid) for a newer one with less history and star rating?

Both @melvincarvalho and @kidehen raise valid points. Given that this has become a highly trafficked repository, it is worth asking first how to utilize that attention for the good of the project. We're still left in a place where the contents of the repository are somewhat outdated, and we also have a project website that people should be pointed towards.

So perhaps we need to consider the following instead:

1. Do not archive this repository
2. Update the contents to ensure they are current, helpful, and complementary to solidproject.org
3. Ensure that we have pointers to other project properties like the main website, forum, etc.
4. Go through the issues on the repository to make sure they're still relevant and assigned accordingly

Given that the course of this PR has changed I'll dismiss my review until we have worked out the path forward.