Add copyright note

[jo-mueller]

@dstansby rightfully pointed out that the original spec template contained a license note for derivative work. I would tend to say that the spec, at this point, doesn't have to do much with the original text anymore, so maybe adding the note would suffice?

Otherwise, I am afraid that adding a BSD3 license here may be a bit of difficult/problematic thing to do, atm 😬

Edit: Did some more searching yesterday and I think doing it like this should be ok. Two of the original license statements don't apply:

• There is no software here that would have to be licensed under Apache 2.0
• There is no contribution to w3c content that would require consent to w3c CLA.

So we would only need to retain the copyright notice, which only applies to the parts of the template that are left over (which aren't many).

[github-actions]

Automated Review URLs

• Readthedocs

[lubianat]

Noting that this is under discussion for a decision in the future

[dstansby]

Can I ask what the discussion is around not merging this? It seems fairly un-controversial that the licensing of https://github.com/ome/ngff should be respected.

[lubianat]

@dstansby yes, not merging. We are keeping it open for discussion if any alternative path is needed and the correct way to do it.

The OME meeting in late May would be one of those moments to move it forward.

For clarity "forward" may well be deciding on keeping things as is

[dstansby]

Can you explain what the problems/blockers are to merging this as-is?

For clarity "forward" may well be deciding on keeping things as is

As things currently are (and as I understand), this repository is violating the license of the original NGFF repository which include (https://www.w3.org/copyright/software-license-2015/):

Permission to copy, modify, and distribute this work, with or without modification, for any purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you include the following on ALL copies of the work or portions thereof, including modifications:

The full text of this NOTICE in a location viewable to users of the redistributed or derivative work.

Is it under consideration that this repository continues to ignore this requirement in the long term?

[lubianat]

sorry for not steering better, I am not sure of what the community understanding around the whole licensing topic is.

I care that (1) terms are respected, and we are not in violation; (2) that some rough consensus exists in NGFF and (3) that license fits the goals and needs.

If this PR fixes some violation (1), I am personally in favour.

For (2) and (3), perhaps more discussion is needed but that is beyond I can decide (and I don't have an opinion)