chore: update FB template headers

[yangshun]

Pre-flight checklist

• I have read the Contributing Guidelines on pull requests.
• If this is a code change: I have written unit tests and/or added dogfooding pages to fully verify the new behavior.
• If this is a new API or substantial change: the PR has an accompanying issue (closes #0000) and the maintainers have approved on my working plan.

Motivation

Our internal copyright header requirements have changed.

Test Plan

Run Eslint in the facebook template

Test links

Deploy preview: https://deploy-preview-_____--docusaurus-2.netlify.app/

Related issues/PRs

[netlify]

✅ [V2]

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	1ac8f9f
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/docusaurus-2/deploys/62e2265a7f3704000847536f
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-7842--docusaurus-2.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

[github-actions]

⚡️ Lighthouse report for the deploy preview of this PR

URL	Performance	Accessibility	Best Practices	SEO	PWA	Report
/	🟠 87	🟢 100	🟢 100	🟢 100	🟢 90	Report
/docs/installation	🟠 76	🟢 100	🟢 100	🟢 100	🟢 90	Report

[github-actions]

Size Change: 0 B

Total Size: 805 kB

ℹ️ View Unchanged

Filename	Size
website/.docusaurus/globalData.json	52.8 kB
website/build/assets/css/styles.********.css	106 kB
website/build/assets/js/main.********.js	608 kB
website/build/index.html	38.9 kB

_{compressed-size-action}

[slorber]

Shouldn't we change all the other headers as well?

[Josh-Cena]

In hindsight this looks really sus 🤔 This means the template is for non-open-source sites by default? Should we at least keep the original header somewhere for reference, for open-source ones?

[yangshun]

Shouldn't we change all the other headers as well?

Yes but since this is within the code, it's not as urgent. It's more urgent to update the template as this is being flagged as a violation for new projects (we have internal lint rules which conflict).

In hindsight this looks really sus 🤔 This means the template is for non-open-source sites by default? Should we at least keep the original header somewhere for reference, for open-source ones?

Hmm I didn't really consider the contents lol, was just trying to make the internal linter happy. The new internal website I was trying to change this for actually is meant to be open sourced eventually.

@zpao do you have any advice here?

[zpao]

This should get reverted. The headers here are intended for public code and I updated those in #7639. If we want a template for non-public headers then we can consider that but since the intent here is primarily public projects, this was already right.

was just trying to make the internal linter happy.

We'll talk elsewhere. There are better ways to do that :)