[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Copyrights and org.eclipse.license
|
Ah, so that's your question. Well, then
I can definitely say I don't know the answer.
I suspect your right, it's related to
if a feature has a "branding bundle" (or direct descendent of
one that does) ... I know "root feature" also play a role (at
least on that "overview" page ... but, in many cases, I don't
think "we" want to show users ALL features ... There's just be
too many.
I do know that "source features
(and bundles)" are deliberately not shown (as being too much clutter)
but ... I'm not sure what mechanism accomplishes that (because when we
first moved to Tycho, they were displayed, and I forget the bug number
and the fix "they" had to make to get them recognized and not
displayed.
For debugging, I always ask for the
"Configuration" page, which I do think has a "complete list"
of features and plugins (search for '***').
Hope that helps, and perhaps another
reader can answer your question more directly.
From:
Ed Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:
Cross project issues
<cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:
05/25/2014 02:22 AM
Subject:
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev]
Copyrights and org.eclipse.license
Sent by:
cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
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.
Regards
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 feature.properties is redundant, since only the branding
plug about.properties 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
- about.properties with a featureText=... property
----
Back to my original question.
It seems that there should be a
copyright=...
in every feature.properties 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?
Regards
Ed Willink
On 08/05/2014 15:25, David M Williams wrote:
Ed,
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.
= = == = = = = =
Christian,
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 ?
org.eclipse.riena.build.feature.core.sdk.e4.feature.group 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 * http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html
* * 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 http://www.eclipse.org/legal/guidetolegaldoc.php
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.
Thanks,
From: Ed
Willink <ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Cross
project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 05/08/2014
08:12 AM
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev]
Copyrights and org.eclipse.license
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi David
While checking http://build.eclipse.org/simrel/luna/reporeports/reports/copyrights.html,
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.
Visit https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/modeling.mdt.ocl
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?
Regards
Ed Willink_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4577 / Virus Database: 3931/7457 - Release Date: 05/07/14
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3950/7555 - Release Date: 05/24/14
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
