Use public domain headers for our tests

RESOLVED FIXED in Firefox 4.0

Status

defect
P4
normal
RESOLVED FIXED
9 years ago
3 years ago

People

(Reporter: iangilman, Assigned: raymondlee)

Tracking

Trunk
Firefox 4.0
Dependency tree / graph
Bug Flags:
in-testsuite -

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(1 attachment, 1 obsolete attachment)

Instead of the boiler plate we're using at the top of all of our tests, we should just use:

/* Any copyright is dedicated to the Public Domain.
   http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ */

Obviously this is not a big deal, but we might as well fix our old tests at some point, and certainly all of our new tests should have this.

Thanks to sdwilsh for pointing this out!
Is it appropriate to keep the Contributor(s) information in the header, below the "public domain" notice? The information can be useful when debugging some test issues, and can be faster than going to the hg log.
You could keep it in a second block, but really, are we talking about optimizing mere seconds of lookup time for the (hopefully) rare case of fixing a broken test?
(in general, the contributors section in most files isn't useful because people do not frequently add themselves to it)
Okay then... simple public domain notice, then. Thanks Shawn.
Posted patch v1 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Trivial patch, just update headers and no actual code changes.
Assignee: nobody → raymond
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #514713 - Flags: review?(ian)
Attachment #514713 - Attachment is patch: true
Attachment #514713 - Attachment mime type: application/octet-stream → text/plain
Comment on attachment 514713 [details] [diff] [review]
v1

Yup, looks good. The only question I have is a technical one: do we need any sort of permission from the original developers to change the licenses? Obviously files written under contract for Mozilla do not have this issue, but I suspect we have a few in here which were not, but still copied the license header which says "The Initial Developer ... is Mozilla". :/
Attachment #514713 - Flags: feedback+
(In reply to comment #6)
> Comment on attachment 514713 [details] [diff] [review]
> v1
> 
> Yup, looks good. The only question I have is a technical one: do we need any
> sort of permission from the original developers to change the licenses?
> Obviously files written under contract for Mozilla do not have this issue, but
> I suspect we have a few in here which were not, but still copied the license
> header which says "The Initial Developer ... is Mozilla". :/

Who is the best person we can ask about this?
(In reply to comment #6)
> Yup, looks good. The only question I have is a technical one: do we need any
> sort of permission from the original developers to change the licenses?
> Obviously files written under contract for Mozilla do not have this issue, but
> I suspect we have a few in here which were not, but still copied the license
> header which says "The Initial Developer ... is Mozilla". :/
Yes you do.
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Yup, looks good. The only question I have is a technical one: do we need any
> > sort of permission from the original developers to change the licenses?
> > Obviously files written under contract for Mozilla do not have this issue, but
> > I suspect we have a few in here which were not, but still copied the license
> > header which says "The Initial Developer ... is Mozilla". :/
> Yes you do.

Checked the patch. Most of the tests were written by the Panorama team (Ian, Mitcho, Sean, Tim and me).  There are two tests by Ehsan and one by Patrick Walton.  

@Ehsan and Patrick: is it ok to change the license in the test files you created?
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > (In reply to comment #6)
> > > Yup, looks good. The only question I have is a technical one: do we need any
> > > sort of permission from the original developers to change the licenses?
> > > Obviously files written under contract for Mozilla do not have this issue, but
> > > I suspect we have a few in here which were not, but still copied the license
> > > header which says "The Initial Developer ... is Mozilla". :/
> > Yes you do.
> 
> Checked the patch. Most of the tests were written by the Panorama team (Ian,
> Mitcho, Sean, Tim and me).  There are two tests by Ehsan and one by Patrick
> Walton.  
> 
> @Ehsan and Patrick: is it ok to change the license in the test files you
> created?

Yup.
(In reply to comment #9)
> @Ehsan and Patrick: is it ok to change the license in the test files you
> created?
ehsan is employed by mozilla, so the copyright is to the foundation anyway ;)
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > @Ehsan and Patrick: is it ok to change the license in the test files you
> > created?
> ehsan is employed by mozilla, so the copyright is to the foundation anyway ;)

What sdwilsh said, and furthermore, it would be fine if I were the copyright owner myself!  :-)
I'm fine with the license changes, too!
Attachment #514713 - Flags: review?(ian) → review+
Comment on attachment 514713 [details] [diff] [review]
v1

Trivial change.  Only update the licenses so this patch doesn't have any risks.
Attachment #514713 - Flags: approval2.0?
Comment on attachment 514713 [details] [diff] [review]
v1

test changes don't need approval
Attachment #514713 - Flags: approval2.0?
Trivial change. Only updated licenses in test files.
Attachment #514713 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Keywords: checkin-needed
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/621e26f42542
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Keywords: checkin-needed
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 4.0
Flags: in-testsuite-
Version: unspecified → Trunk
Product: Firefox → Firefox Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.