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 <[email protected]>
To:     Cross project issues <[email protected]>, 
Date:   05/08/2014 08:12 AM
Subject:        [cross-project-issues-dev] Copyrights and 
org.eclipse.license
Sent by:        [email protected]



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
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev


_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev

Reply via email to