chore: update license year

[Shinigami92]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (de5d07e) 99.57% compared to head (cfe23b0) 99.57%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             next    #2594      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   99.57%   99.57%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        2807     2807              
  Lines      250401   250401              
  Branches     1144     1141       -3     
==========================================
- Hits       249338   249335       -3     
- Misses       1035     1038       +3     
  Partials       28       28              

see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[matthewmayer]

Maybe could remove the copyright statement from the user agent and mersenne files and just leave it in LICENSE so it's only in one place?

[ST-DDT]

Or at least our copyright year.

[Shinigami92]

I was now shown various options for changing something that would have to be changed once a year and adjusting 3 lines. I would not like to get involved in discussions and waste potential time researching whether and where license years are required and where not. If this is really that important to you, then it's best to open your own PR and close this one if necessary.

[matthewmayer]

I agree it is an annoying discussion BUT copyright is important. Rather than blindly updating the year once a year it's important we understand what the copyright statement actually means and if it applies to specific files or the whole repo.

[Shinigami92]

I agree it is an annoying discussion BUT copyright is important. Rather than blindly updating the year once a year it's important we understand what the copyright statement actually means and if it applies to specific files or the whole repo.

So you suggest to only touch the specific files if their content changes?
And in this PR I should revert the specific files and only bump the LICENSE file in root?

[matthewmayer]

I'd bump the root one and look into the history of the other files to see if there is some special reason why they have seperate copyright statements. If not they should just be removed as they don't serve any purpose.

[Shinigami92]

I'd bump the root one and look into the history of the other files to see if there is some special reason why they have seperate copyright statements. If not they should just be removed as they don't serve any purpose.

So I reset the specific files and left the other task to someone who has the will to do it