fix: copyright examples

[wesleytodd]

Added some small examples and one clarifying line based on the conversation here: https://openjs-foundation.slack.com/archives/CS23BMK1P/p1736535381047589

[tobie]

I'm not sure this is great to have in the guidance, as changing the project's name might have trademark implications that the foundation might need to look into.

[wesleytodd]

Ah, good point. The reason I added this change is because this document does not recommend (and neither did our slack convo) using "OpenJS Foundation" in the copyright. And we said that we don't think anyone transferred copyright to the foundation when on-boarding. So if you don't think we should call this out, then I think we should delete this line entirely since it is confusing.

[tobie]

And we said that we don't think anyone transferred copyright to the foundation when on-boarding.

I certainly didn't say this. The JS foundation has been around for quite a while, we can't rule out that copyright got transferred to the JS Foundation at some point.

[wesleytodd]

Do we need to confirm this more thoroughly? Maybe my wording here was incomplete saying "we said we don't think", but it for sure was said in that thread we didn't know of any. And @rginn said:

Except in extreme cases (and this isn't an extreme case), copyrights are held by the original contributors and are not assigned to the Foundation.

Maybe Robin can help us clarify if there are any cases where copyright was transferred?

[tobie]

Do we need to confirm this more thoroughly?

I personally don't think this is high value nor worth spending resources on, but others might disagree. I also don't know whether that's the only reason to keep the copyright statement mentioning the foundation.

[tobie]

Overall I'm -1 on providing examples for what are really corner cases in the IP guidance. The idea of the guidance is to make it really easy to do the basics right. It's not meant to be exhaustive. And providing extensive examples to corner cases make them look more important than they really are. I'd suggest just updating it like so:

Suggested change

	You may however update copyright lines that say "JS Foundation" or "Node.js Foundation" to "OpenJS Foundation" as this simply reflects the merged status of the organizations.
	The same applies for individual projects that change names._
	_Examples:_
	**Lines you can update:**
	- `Copyright 2025 The XYZ Authors.` to `Copyright The XYZ Authors.`
	- `Copyright 2025 Node.js Foundation.` to `Copyright OpenJS Foundation.`
	**Lines you CANNOT update:**
	- `Copyright 2025 John Doe.`
	- `Copyright Jane Doe.`
	You may however update copyright lines that say "JS Foundation" or "Node.js Foundation" to "OpenJS Foundation" (as this simply reflects the merged status of the organizations) and remove the year(s) from copyright lines that mention the project or the foundation's name._

[tobie]

I also won't die on this hill and won't block this if folks want it in.

[wesleytodd]

The point I intended adding these is that examples help people understand the meaning of this language. We needed an entire slack conversation to figure out what exactly this meant in it's original form, and IMO that can be resolved by having simple examples. And personally I don't think this is an edge case. I have seen lines like this in many projects. I do not thing "examples" implies it is being exhaustive personally, but I agree if we are implying that we should be sure not to. Is there a way we could make this more clear to an average layperson while also satisfying your concern?

[tobie]

Maybe reordering the whole thing would do. It's weird to have generic examples after the note that addresses fairly specific concerns. E.g. adding an H4 level title saying something along the lines of: "Modifying or removing existing copyright notices."

[tobie]

I tried cleaning up a bit, see examples below:

---

2. Copyright notices

The recommendation is to use a general copyright statement of the following form (where XYZ is the project's name):

• Copyright The XYZ Authors.
• Copyright The XYZ Contributors.
• Copyright Contributors to the XYZ project.

By using this format, the project avoids having to deal with names of copyright holders, years or ranges of years, and variations on the (c) symbol.

If there are existing copyright lines add the recommended copyright statement below the existing copyright lines.

Editing existing copyright notices

You must not modify or remove existing copyright lines unless you put them there and have the right to do so.

However, you may update copyright lines that say "JS Foundation" or "Node.js Foundation" to "OpenJS Foundation" (as this simply reflects the merged status of the organizations) and remove the year(s) from copyright lines that mention the project or the foundation's name.

For example:

• Copyright 2025 John Doe. must not be modified or removed.
• Copyright 2025 The XYZ Authors. may be updated to Copyright The XYZ Authors.
• Copyright 2025 Node.js Foundation. may be updated to Copyright OpenJS Foundation.

---

2. Copyright notices

The recommendation is to use a general copyright statement of the following form (where XYZ is the project's name):

• Copyright The XYZ Authors.
• Copyright The XYZ Contributors.
• Copyright Contributors to the XYZ project.

By using this format, the project avoids having to deal with names of copyright holders, years or ranges of years, and variations on the (c) symbol.

Please note that you must not change or remove existing copyright lines unless you put them there and have the right to do so.
If there are existing copyright lines add the recommended copyright statement below the existing copyright lines.
You may however update copyright lines that say "JS Foundation" or "Node.js Foundation" to "OpenJS Foundation" (as this simply reflects the merged status of the organizations) and remove the year(s) from copyright lines that mention the project or the foundation's name (e.g. "Copyright 2025 The XYZ Authors" may be updated to "Copyright The XYZ Authors").

---

Overall, I'm still favor the lighter version.