Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [jakartaee-tck-dev] About copyright plugin potential fix


On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 4:30 PM Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 5:04 PM Cesar Hernandez <chernandez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
I updated my PR [1] to keep the project code conventions. 

Excellent, thanks! :) 


I'm going to also contact license@xxxxxxxxxxx, to get their feedback as well, just to ensure that all bases are covered, with regard to these files and which wording to use.  
@Scoot, did you get any feedback from Eclipse on this matter?

I did hear back and the recommendation is that we replace the lib/schemas with new Jakarta EE 9 equivalent schema definitions from [1][2].  IMO, we should remove lib/schemas that we aren't actually using in TCK tests.

IMO, we should remove lib/dtds that we aren't actually using in TCK tests.  Then, we can determine if the lib/dtds that are actually referenced from TCK tests are needed.

Does that make sense?

Scott

 

No feedback yet to share. 
 

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 6:46 AM Scott Marlow <smarlow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 2:29 PM Ed Bratt <ed.bratt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The header provides instructions for adding copyrights for changes to existing files.

After the notice text, add the new copyright statement. Here are the relevant instructions lifted from the header:

If applicable, add the following below the License Header, with the fields enclosed by brackets [] replaced by your own identifying information: "Portions Copyrighted [year] [name of copyright owner]"

So,

  • To existing files, below the header text, add: "Portions copyrighted 2020, Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation."
  • To new files that build from the previous version (I suspect most if not all will copy the previous version), do the same.
  • For anything completely new, use the project license. (EPL 2.0 + GPLv2 w/CpE)

We can ask the Eclipse clearance team about this as well if what I have written above doesn't seem to cover the concern. It seems plausible that there might be some leeway in terms of who the "DO NOT ALTER ..." statement is intended for. Originators (i.e. contributors/committers) may be able to make be allowed to make some changes (e.g. adding the current copyright year), while recipients/end-users might not. The next step from here could  be to send a question to license@xxxxxxxxxxx.

https://www.eclipse.org/lists/ee4j-pmc/threads.html#02598 aligns with appending below the header text, copying from the ee4j-pmc thread:
"
So, we need to leave the Oracle copyrights as-is, except for updating the date.
Copyright (c) 2018, 2020 Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

And, if "original content" is introduced (per Steve's note), then adding an organization-specific copyright would be in order.
        Copyright (c) {year} {owner}[ and others]

Or, the more generic.
        Copyright (c) {year} Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation

This latter information is spelled out here:  https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#ip-copyright-headers
"

For updating the existing files, I'm not sure if we should use "Portions copyrighted 2020, Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation." OR "Copyright (c) 2020 Contributors to the Eclipse Foundation", both seem very similar.  

I'm going to also contact license@xxxxxxxxxxx, to get their feedback as well, just to ensure that all bases are covered, with regard to these files and which wording to use.  

Scott

-- Ed


On 5/4/2020 9:54 AM, Scott Marlow wrote:
Hi Cesar,

Thanks for making the PR!  

Kevin asked a question about the "DO NOT ALTER..." copyright aspects that I don't know how to answer, other than to possibly eliminate the DTDs + XSD files that have this (or something else).

As mentioned on the pr, https://gist.github.com/scottmarlow/0e2c3649786365955cc0024d7e7a694e lists the files that have this wording currently.

Some example file links:

Can someone explain the meaning of the "DO NOT ALTER" copyright statement and how that aligns with the Eclipse guidance to update the copyright date when modifying the contents of the file?

Should we replace the existing XSDs with EE 9 schema definitions?  How about the DTDs?

Scott

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:31 PM Cesar Hernandez <chernandez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,

During the review of javax.jms to jakarta.jms PR [1], Scott provided context about an issue with the copyright plugin [2].

I opened the following fix proposal that will prevent false positives by having a new -e flag to be an opt-in feature: 


_______________________________________________
jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev

_______________________________________________
jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev
_______________________________________________
jakartaee-tck-dev mailing list
jakartaee-tck-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakartaee-tck-dev

Back to the top