Note: this includes the commit from #10155 ... the expectation is that #10155 would land first

@mikeal Can we get the legal team to review and sign-off on the new header ASAP? I don't want to be stuck with this massive header for the next 6 months waiting for the legal committee to review this. Especially since they're known to take their sweet time.

@bnoordhuis I've been told you're actually going to be speaking w/ the legal team directly. If this is correct, can you also bring up the need to immediately review the new header?

@rvagg I was told you're the only other one that has access to the legal team. Can you also put pressure on the legal team, or let me know how I can communicate w/ them directly (because, that would make more sense), that they sign-off on the new header?

I have sent a note to @mikeal and @rvagg asking them to formally request legal committee review. Hopefully we'll get a timely review of the changes.

Does «All rights reserved» mean anything nowdays in any country?

Wikipedia says:

no longer has any legal effect in any jurisdiction

Largely just an artifact of history, I believe. I don't have a problem removing it

@jasnell I have a highly subjective opinion that it makes it a bit more aggresive for no good reason, e.g. I wouldn't be very surprised if someone who doesn't know what exactly that means would be scared off by it instead of reusing code and/or contributing.

Just ignore me if no one else thinks that way, though =). This concern is both subjective and very minor.

Removing the "All rights reserved" I think would be fine. I can update the proposal accordingly.

I'm not too sure about All rights reserved. either. The rights aren't reserved, it is MIT licensed...?

From legal committee, preferred language:

Copyright Node.js contributors. All rights reserved.
SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT

The legal committee consensus is that this should not be landed yet but that the simplified text with the SPDX reference should be used.

The legal committee also wanted to note that the "All rights reserved" should remain because it is used in other vendored notice blocks and it might cause confusion if it were in some files but not others.

I will get the PRs updated by Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
It should also be noted that the legal committee requested that additional documentation be added to the contributor guide discussing:

• The requirement for the copyright header to appear at the top of every /lib/*.js, /src/*.cc, and /src/*.h file
• The requirement for appropriate attribution and maintenance of attribution in vendored-in files

I will also be introducing lint rules to ensure that the appropriate copyright statements appear at the top of each file

This PR has been updated to only include the new proposed license header and an eslint rule to enforce it's use.

@bnoordhuis @jbergstroem ... we need a similar rule for cpplint to check the src/.h and src/.cc files. I'm not that familiar with cpplint so perhaps either of you could help?

Shouldn't be too hard. Remove -legal/copyright from _DEFAULT_FILTERS and make CheckForCopyright() check for the expected license.

ok, so just make the change directly to the cpplint.py script. That's what I suspected but needed to be sure. Thank you!

Closing this due to any lack of progress.