Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Copyrights and org.eclipse.license

Hi David

Let me try a simpler question since we seem to be being confused by P2 repositories and the running installation.

What is the purpose of the Eclipse SDK Installation Details Features page?

My expectation is that it should list every feature that is successfully installed/resolved in the running installation. Further I expect that the plugin details button enable me to identify every plugin associated with the feature.

Currently many  features are not listed and many plugins are not shown, so either my expectation or the page is at fault.


        Ed Willink

On 25/05/2014 07:05, David M Williams wrote:
Ed, I don't really know the answer to some of your questions (not sure I understand what question you have, exactly) ... but, pretty sure it not a "a bug in the Features page".  One of the reasons some reports are given as they are, is that some may have use for p2 repositories and their metadata "above and beyond" how Eclipse specifically uses them. To quote the p2 wiki: "Although p2 has specific support for installing Eclipse and Equinox-based applications, it includes a general-purpose provisioning infrastructure that can be used as the basis for provisioning solutions for a wide variety of software applications."

So, yes, some reports are not that important for the "Simultaneous Release" per se ... but ... might be important for a "perfect repository" (which in theory, could be used by some other client ... though I know of no specific ones). That's why I always try emphasize only the most important ones, in my notes, and the order the reports are listed, and remind everyone if you find the other useful, fine, if not, then you can ignore them. I appreciate that "Buckminster" is making good use of it for project builds, which is great, and I'm sure if some reports "get in the way" someone will figure out a good patch to allow some report or test to be "configured". (I've heard of "requests" for that ... but, don't think anyone has opened a specific bug on it).

Hope that helps, a little.

From:        Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        05/24/2014 10:30 AM
Subject:        Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Copyrights and org.eclipse.license
Sent by:        cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

Hi David

'properties' is sort of the answer, but it's more mysterious.


I have been reviewing the Eclipse SDK Installation Details Features page since this is the only place where I think users get to see a formatted feature copyright.

I'm puzzled since I found it difficult to understand what this page actually displays. Far from displaying all installed features, as I assumed, it appears to show:

- all features that either have an explicit branding plugin or a plugin with the same id as the feature (? an implicit branding plugin).
- copyright details taken from the 'branding' plugin featureText property.

There are therefore a large number of installed features that are not displayed. (Over 50% for my projects).

copyright text in is redundant, since only the branding plug is used.


It seems that every feature should have a branding plugin to populate the Eclipse SDK Installation Details Features page using
- about.ini with an aboutText=%featureText property
- with a featureText=... property


Back to my original question.

It seems that there should be a


in every in order to silence the Buckminster warning.

The text of this copyright is only visible by manually reading the properties file (or perhaps using a properties file API).


Is the above analysis correct and if so how much of it is a bug in the Features page?


        Ed Willink

On 08/05/2014 15:25, David M Williams wrote:

Not sure ... of the answer, or what you are asking, but will answer anyway, and maybe I'll get lucky :)

As with "license" (SUA) text, there are actually two sources ... one in property files, and one in repository metadata (in content.jar/xml). Since that report mentions "repo" at the top, believe its looking at repository data.

Whereas in Eclipse SDK "about" it's probably coming from property file.

If I recall, from top of my head, in most cases in "Eclipse UI", there are few (or no?) places to see the copyright as it appears in repository -- for bundles --  (perhaps in runtime targets -- not sure) ... so the report is probably not that useful -- for bundles ... but, features can display their "copyright" before you install something ... and that comes from content.xml/jar file. But, once installed, it comes from properties file. I think (again, depending on my poor memory) the one in property files "comes from" what's defined for plugin.xml, but the one in metadata comes from an OSGi header in bundle ... that few people use.

= = == = = = = =


I'm no lawyer :) but you are probably correct they'd find it a "valid" copyright statement.

... I have a question. Why does the word „Copyright“ has to be at the beginning and why does it make a difference if it is not ?   6.0.0.v20140506_6_0_0_M7b
 ******************************************************************************* * Copyright (c) 2007 - 2013 compeople AG and others. * All rights reserved. This program and the accompanying materials * are made available under the terms of the Eclipse Public License v1.0 * which accompanies this distribution, and is available at * * * Contributors: * compeople AG - initial API and implementation *******************************************************************************

But, I am a human, and can definitively say it does not look pretty! :)

On the one hand, the report is doing you a favor since such lines often indicate an "end of line" or "extra" continuation character got added. That is, doubt you intended to have so many asterisks at the beginning of your copyright statement. Did you?
And on the other hand, I think I'm just looking for something that approaches the Eclipse Foundation's  "standard" display ... such as see section 4.3, Features Licenses and Feature Update Licenses. I other words, I think best if we all had a consistent, professional look to such "copyright" statements (at the bottom of that figure). Does yours look ok, there, or do you see the string of asterisks?

= = = = = =

All, these reports are intended to help you. They are not perfect. Improvements welcome. And if you don't find them useful, you can ignore them. Well, except for a few cases. We'll soon start to "fail builds" if "legal files" missing, etc. but doubt we ever would "fail" for "indeterminate" cases of copyright's ... but ... might, someday, not for June, if missing completely.  


Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
05/08/2014 08:12 AM
[cross-project-issues-dev] Copyrights and org.eclipse.license
Sent by:        

Hi David

While checking, I see that my plugins are reported as

"Indeterminant: feature's copyright text contains the word 'copyright' but not at beginning:"

which seems to be the same story as Hudson complaining that %copyright is undefined when re-using org.eclipse.license.

However when I check the copyrights in Eclipse SDK Installation Details|Features it seems that something has done a good job of deducing the copyright as:

(c) Copyright Eclipse contributors and others. 2003, 2014.  All rights reserved.


so I was impressed and ignored the Hudson warnings.

If there is clever code providing the copyright, why doesn't your report find it?

Any idea where the clever code is?


       Ed Willink
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list


cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 2014.0.4577 / Virus Database: 3931/7457 - Release Date: 05/07/14

cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

cross-project-issues-dev mailing list

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3950/7555 - Release Date: 05/24/14

Back to the top