Inconsistent copyright headers in function catalog

[mozesl-nokia]

Copyright headers in the krm-functions-catalog repo are inconsistent and outdated. Some files have old headers despite being updated recently and some are missing entirely.

We should agree on the correct header (I would assume the one we use in the kpt repo), document it in the contributor guide and fix the files where it's outdated or missing.

[SurbhiAgarwal1]

I'd like to work on this issue. Here's my analysis:

Current Copyright Header Format (from kpt repo)

The standard format used in kpt repository is:

// Copyright YYYY The kpt Authors
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
//
//      http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
//
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
// limitations under the License.

Where YYYY is the year of file creation (or range like 2019,2026 for updated files).

Note: Some files use // Copyright YYYY The kpt and Nephio Authors for joint projects.

Proposed Approach

1. Audit krm-functions-catalog repo

   • Identify files with missing headers
   • Identify files with outdated/incorrect headers
   • Create a list of files to fix

2. Document the standard

   • Add copyright header guidelines to CONTRIBUTING.md
   • Specify the correct format
   • Provide examples

3. Fix inconsistencies

   • Add headers to files missing them
   • Update outdated headers to match standard format
   • Preserve original creation year where applicable

4. Automation (optional)

   • Consider adding a linter/pre-commit hook to enforce headers
   • Or document manual verification process

Questions

1. Should I use the current year (2026) for all headers, or preserve original years?
2. For joint kpt/Nephio projects, which header format should be used?
3. Should this include test files and non-Go files (YAML, Markdown)?

Let me know if this approach looks good, and I'll start with the krm-functions-catalog repo audit!

[liamfallon]

I would recommend:

• Keeping the current years if possible
• There shouldn't be any Nephio headers in the code base, I'd recommend changing to kpt only
• It really should include everything (but that could be a lot of work)

[SurbhiAgarwal1]

Thanks for the guidance! I'll keep original years, use kpt-only headers, and include all file types.

I'll audit the krm-functions-catalog repo first. Should I submit a PR directly or share the audit results for review?

[SurbhiAgarwal1]

I've completed an audit of the krm-functions-catalog repo. Here's what I found:

Audit Results

Scope: functions/go directory (108 Go files total)

• 16 files with Google LLC headers (need to change to "The kpt Authors")
• 61 files missing copyright headers entirely
• 31 files are generated code (will skip)

Total files to fix: 77

Files with Google LLC Headers (16)

Examples:

• functions/go/apply-replacements/run.go
• functions/go/gatekeeper/main.go
• functions/go/set-labels/main.go
• functions/go/set-namespace/main.go
• functions/go/starlark/run.go
• (11 more files)

Files Missing Headers (61)

Examples:

• functions/go/apply-setters/main.go
• functions/go/create-setters/main.go
• functions/go/ensure-name-substring/main.go
• functions/go/generate-kpt-pkg-docs/main.go
• (57 more files)

Questions Before Starting

1. Should I fix the archived/ directory too, or only active functions/?
2. For Google LLC files, should I keep their original year (2021-2022) or update to 2026?
3. Some files have "Modifications Copyright (C) 2025 OpenInfra Foundation Europe" - should I remove these lines?
4. Should I submit the full list of 77 files, or would you like to review the complete audit first?

I can provide the complete file list if needed. Let me know if you'd like me to proceed with the PR or if you want to review the detailed audit first!

[liamfallon]

Hi @SurbhiAgarwal1, here is my opinion:

1. If you have time to fix the archived files, that would be great. You could do them in a subsequent PR
2. Please keep the original year for the files donated by Google
3. You can remove the OpenInfra Foundation Europe copyright notices but please update the dates on the main copyright when you do please follow the guidelines outlined here as much as possible. These are the rules in Porch but we follow them in kpt as well
4. It's not necessary to review the audit, it would be great if you went straight to raising a PR.