Switch Intl.PluralRules tests to public domain

RESOLVED FIXED in Firefox 56

Status

()

enhancement
RESOLVED FIXED
2 years ago
2 years ago

People

(Reporter: zbraniecki, Assigned: zbraniecki)

Tracking

unspecified
mozilla56
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(firefox56 fixed)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment)

Gerv, can you confirm that it's ok for us to switch?

I'm the author of three of the four of those files. Andre Bargull (NI'ed as well) is the author of the fourth.
Flags: needinfo?(gerv)
Flags: needinfo?(andrebargull)
I'm totally fine with releasing the tests I've written under public domain.
Flags: needinfo?(andrebargull)

Comment 3

2 years ago
Thanks for this helpful change!
With everyone's permission, sure.

Gerv
Flags: needinfo?(gerv)
Assignee: nobody → gandalf
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Gerv - can you rubber stamp the patch pls? Or redirect to someone who can
Flags: needinfo?(gerv)

Comment 7

2 years ago
mozreview-review
Comment on attachment 8886507 [details]
Bug 1380931 - Switch Intl.PluralRules tests to public domain.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/157322/#review163770

rs=me given comments 1, 2, and 4.
Attachment #8886507 - Flags: review+
Attachment #8886507 - Flags: review?(gerv)
Thanks Till! :)
Flags: needinfo?(gerv)

Comment 9

2 years ago
Pushed by zbraniecki@mozilla.com:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/c4735d730462
Switch Intl.PluralRules tests to public domain. r=till

Comment 10

2 years ago
bugherder
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/c4735d730462
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 2 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla56
Comment on attachment 8886507 [details]
Bug 1380931 - Switch Intl.PluralRules tests to public domain.

Er, hang on. You wanted these to be Public Domain; why did you not use the Public Domain dedication license header from the standard Mozilla header boilerplate page?
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/headers/
->
/* Any copyright is dedicated to the Public Domain.
 * http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ */

Please can you update the tests to use it? "No header" != "public domain".

Gerv
Attachment #8886507 - Flags: review-
(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #11)
> Please can you update the tests to use it? "No header" != "public domain".

I thought test code without an explicit license header was implicitly public domain per https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/license-policy/#Licensing_of_Mozilla_Code?
That's a grandfathering provision, and deals with the situation when people forget; it doesn't mean we should intentionally generate more code whose licensing status is not recorded within itself. Perhaps I need to update the policy to make that more clear.

Gerv
(In reply to Gervase Markham [:gerv] from comment #13)
> That's a grandfathering provision, and deals with the situation when people
> forget; it doesn't mean we should intentionally generate more code whose
> licensing status is not recorded within itself. Perhaps I need to update the
> policy to make that more clear.
> 
> Gerv

Not requiring tests to have a license header is common practice in SpiderMonkey. This precedes your official sanctioning of header-less tests, but as of 2014 we do have that sanctioning:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mozilla.dev.planning/cc0%7Csort:relevance/mozilla.dev.planning/7zSiApMl1tM/mQQzsGbYpo4J

If you wanted that to *only* sanction grandfathered use of header-less test files, then you should send a followup clarifying that: I'm pretty sure nobody understood it that way.

I would also ask you to consider the trade-offs and really only make this policy change (which for practical purposes it is, given how your 2014 message was understood) if there are good reasons for it: given that we have a lot of these tests and that as you point out a simple check of the date a test landed at can verify the license a test is under, it's not clear to me what advantages this change would have.
Flags: needinfo?(gerv)
Hmm. Well, OK :-) I said at the time: "We would encourage but not require people to use the CCO declaration." 

Mozilla's general policy is that per-file licensing information is best practice:
http://lu.is/blog/2012/03/17/on-the-importance-of-per-file-license-information/

I agree this is perhaps a bit less important for tests than for code we actually ship to end users. 

Gerv
Flags: needinfo?(gerv)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.