Move license to EPL 2

[wimjongman]

The current license is EPL1 and we must move to EPL2.

We need to replace the following files:

license.html
epl-v10.html

and fix all texts in feature.xml and feature.properties.

See examples of the new files here:

https://github.com/eclipse/nebula/tree/master/widgets/oscilloscope/org.eclipse.nebula.widgets.oscilloscope.feature

[SteveSchafer-Innovent]

I'll do this. It's about my speed.

[SteveSchafer-Innovent]

What about all the copyright comments in the java files?

Also epl-1 is mentioned in a lot of about.html files.

[ruspl-afed]

1. *.java files header should be modified to comply with EPL2.0, see https://github.com/eclipse-passage/passage/blob/master/bundles/org.eclipse.passage.lic.equinox/src/org/eclipse/passage/lic/equinox/ApplicationIdentifier.java
2. about.html should be replaced with its EPL2.0 version, see https://github.com/eclipse-passage/passage/blob/master/bundles/org.eclipse.passage.lic.equinox/about.html
3. other textual files should obtain a license header if not yet
   *.properties see https://github.com/eclipse-passage/passage/blob/master/bundles/org.eclipse.passage.lic.equinox/OSGI-INF/l10n/bundle.properties
   *.xml https://github.com/eclipse-passage/passage/blob/master/bundles/org.eclipse.passage.lic.equinox/pom.xml

@SteveSchafer-Innovent please select one small bundle to apply EPL2.0 and let us discuss the required changes in details.

Restoring all the chain of contributors could be problematic for every file, but, since we have git history, it is allowed to use formulation like Copyright (c) <year of creation>, 2021 Contributors to Eclipse Foundation

[wimjongman]

Alexander, is point 3 really needed or should we file a new issue and solve that post 4.9?

[ruspl-afed]

Wim, it should not be a big deal while it removes a lot of questions. Typically this is +several files per bundle, nothing notable comparing with amount of .java files.

[wimjongman]

Ok. Let's see.

The java files can be changed using a smart regex find/replace. Same for the about.html.

[SteveSchafer-Innovent]

My plan is to change all the files with scripting of one form or another.

[wimjongman]

Maybe you can ask on cross project mailing list if someone already made these tooling. @vogella do you know.if there is eplv1-eplv2 tooling?

[SteveSchafer-Innovent]

How do I access the cross project mailing list?

[ruspl-afed]

Just read: https://www.eclipse.org/lists/cross-project-issues-dev/2021/Dec/index.html

Subscribe: https://accounts.eclipse.org/mailing-list/cross-project-issues-dev

[vogella]

I used regex expression for the main work and manual fixes then needed, see here: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=535802

[wimjongman]

How do I access the cross project mailing list?

There is this thing called google ;)

[SteveSchafer-Innovent]

I've created awk scripts for license.html, about.html, feature.properties, epl-2.0.html files, and java files. Should I delete the epl-v10.html files? Still searching for more instances of the license but I should be ready to submit a PR soon.

[ruspl-afed]

Please, please, would you be so kind to not submit all the changes in one PR.

[SteveSchafer-Innovent]

I know, the changes are huge. EVERY java file is changed. Would you suggest one PR for each of the file types?

[ruspl-afed]

I would prefer to have 1 PR per bundle

[SteveSchafer-Innovent]

If bundles are instances of plugin.xml then there are 234 of them. Is that what you mean?

[ruspl-afed]

Can we start from 1 (one) PR for the first bundle in the list?
This way we can agree on what should be done for every bundle having relatively small sample.

For example we can start from what is inside this location https://github.com/eclipse/birt/tree/master/UI/org.eclipse.birt.report.debug.core

[SteveSchafer-Innovent]

That location doesn't contain epl-v10.html, feature.properties, or license.html, but it's a good test for about.html and java files.

For the copyright notice in java files, I made the script smart enough to pull the creation year from the existing notice but otherwise I ignored everything else and replaced it with this:

/*******************************************************************************
 * Copyright (c) creation-year, 2021 Contributors to Eclipse Foundation
 *
 * This program and the accompanying materials are made available under the
 * terms of the Eclipse Public License 2.0 which is available at
 * https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/.
 *
 * SPDX-License-Identifier: EPL-2.0
 *
 * Contributors:
 *     See git history
 *******************************************************************************/

I could make the script pull the original contributor name if you think that's necessary. Otherwise is this acceptable?

Also, if the java file did not contain a notice, I added one with 2021 as the creation year.

[ruspl-afed]

That location doesn't contain epl-v10.html, feature.properties, or license.html

because this is not the feature location but bundle location. let's discuss features separately.

Regarding suggested header, @waynebeaton we need your advice

[waynebeaton]

That header is fine as a go-forward solution, but do not remove existing copyright statements.

For completeness, you can do things like add additional copyright holders or "and others" to an existing copyright statement. Or, you can add an entirely new copyright line to an existing header.

FWIW, I was pretty quickly able to identify a header that contains copyright information that is not reflected in the commit log (i.e., the copyright owner was not actually the author or committer of a commit).

[SteveSchafer-Innovent]

If I do not remove existing copyright statements, then I leave the reference to EPL-1, correct? Or add a new copyright to existing header that mentions EPL-2?

[waynebeaton]

No. You can/should change the license statement. Just leave the copyright statements intact.

[SteveSchafer-Innovent]

PR for https://github.com/eclipse/birt/tree/master/UI/org.eclipse.birt.report.debug.core submitted. This project is fairly limited. I've found license references in more files in other projects, including *.html, *.exsd, *.msg, various .properties and .xml files, *.jj files, whatever those are. Some of the html files will be a bit more challenging to parse. I'll be committing the scripts to https://github.com/SteveSchafer-Innovent/Birt-Eclipse-License-Upgrade-Scripts.

[SteveSchafer-Innovent]

There are a number of license.properties files as well as *.msg files that contain a big text block that includes a reference to EPL 1. Is it sufficient to change the reference to EPL 2 or do other parts of that text need to be changed? Specifically there is a date near the top:

license=\
ECLIPSE FOUNDATION SOFTWARE USER AGREEMENT\n\
January 28, 2004\n\

[wimjongman]

Yes, that needs to be changed to correctly reflect the EPL2 header.

[SteveSchafer-Innovent]

I've submitted PR's for several projects, including a feature project. Are we ready to do the whole thing now?

[wimjongman]

Yes, go ahead.

[wimjongman]

Thanks, Steve! A hell of a job. Well done.