Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [eclemma-dev] Milestone 3.0.0 M1 for Oxygen M4
On 11/19/2016 01:14 AM, Evgeny Mandrikov wrote:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:43 PM Marc Hoffmann <hoffmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I successfully installed EclEmma on Eclipse Neon 4.6.1 with
com.mountainminds.eclemma installed previously.

A kind of expectedly :)
Great work, just having the possibility to update from previous bundle names to new one is already a great step forward. Congrats!

 
1) About dialog (see screenshot attached)
This is the provider name, as mentioned below, the provider name for the bundle should be "Eclipse EclEmma".
The feature description may be updated a bit to sound more part of Eclipse.org, but I don't think it's a blocker.
The copyright can remain to "MountainMinds Gmbh & Co KG and others" for the project. If you do want to drop the MountainMinds part of the copyright (why would you?), it's also allowed to write "Copyright (c) 2006-2016, EclEmma project contributors.
2) "License" page in online help
Same thing, the copyright doesn't have to be changed.
On the "About" description, you can also drop the reference to the license directly, or you could also refer directly to the epl page: https://eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.php .
  • "Eclipse EclEmma" can't be a copyright holder, because projects at Eclipse are not a legal entities
  • copyright holder stays unchanged
But I'm not a legal guy.
It's also the rules I'm used to; however since you attended Wayne's presentation recently, you're probably more aware of latest legal advice than most Eclipse contributors, so that makes you the current legal expert of the project ;)
 
Some more issues to clarify:

- What should be the link URL in copyright notices and help (see help
page "Support").

And "http://www.eclemma.org/" is the link URL?
Don't see why it should be changed since we've transferred domain to Eclipse. And what are the alternatives?
+1, you can easily keep those URLs.
The alternatives could be linking to subpages of https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.eclemma/ , but the current links seem more interesting so I wouldn't advise changing them.



Looking on this report my guess was that expectation is just to append "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" to the existing "Copyright (c) 2006, 2016 Mountainminds GmbH & Co. KG and Contributors".
+1.
But now puzzled after your questions and since this report seems to be somehow inconsistent with "About" dialog - for example EGit has "Copyright (c) 2005, 2009 EGit project committers and others." in dialog, but "Copyright (c) 2005, 2009 Shawn Pearce, Robin Rosenberg, et.al." in report.
Both are legal:
* Either mention the actual contributors in copyright headers, or
* use the "EclEmma project committers and other contributors" which is like an indirection that requires a resolution in case some people do want to know who's actually doing it.

> Unsufficient feature description http://download.eclipse.org/staging/oxygen/buildInfo/reporeports/reports/descriptions.html

I thought I know what this means, but now unsure :)

I do not see the report saying the description is Unsufficient. But descriptions are usually more descriptive. For example, it could be:
"""
Eclipse EclEmma provides an integration of the JaCoCo Java code coverage framework in the Eclipse IDE and its Java Development Tools. This integration includes ability to run applications and tests with code coverage enabled and to visualize coverage reports in the IDE and Java Editor.
"""

HTH

--
Mickael Istria
Eclipse developer for Red Hat Developers
My blog - My Tweets

Back to the top