During the last uplift, bug 1114752, I discovered that Windows Debug builds were failing to build because our lib/index.js file was blank for some reason. If we have a test to make sure that all of our files which should include the mpl 2 header actually do, then we can prevent this from happening in the future, make sure all of the files which should have mpl 2 headers actually have them, and make sure that all of our files have a consistent mpl 2 header.

Hey Gerv, When you get a chance could you please take a look at this and check that this looks right to you please?

Comment on attachment 8551330 [details] Link to Github pull-request: https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk/pull/1836 LGTM. Gerv

Comment on attachment 8551330 [details] Link to Github pull-request: https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk/pull/1836 r- because you've changed license of code that isn't ours and had a different license.

(In reply to Irakli Gozalishvili [:irakli] [:gozala] [@gozala] from comment #3) > Comment on attachment 8551330 [details] > Link to Github pull-request: https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk/pull/1836 > > r- because you've changed license of code that isn't ours and had a > different license. Irakli, can you please mention which file you are referring to, and why you think it is an issue? My understanding of MPL 1.1 and MPL 2 is that you can easily and always upgrade from MPL 1.1 to MPL 2. This is why I asked gerv for feedback, and he said it looked ok to him, gerv is my understanding correct? or is gozala correct that is is not allowed? Irakli please corect me if you were referring to a different issue, because I cannot tell from your comment..

It's legally OK to upgrade the MPL 1.1 tri-license (i.e. MPL 1.1/LGPL 2.1/GPL 2.0) to MPL 2.0. (If it's not the tri-license, you have to add the Incompatible with Secondary Licenses language.) However, we should only do this for our code. Doing a relicense of code we've imported from elsewhere should be avoided unless there's a really good reason, as it means we can't send our contributions upstream any more. So any "uses MPL 2" test should cover only code we wrote. Does that help? Gerv

Comment on attachment 8551330 [details] Link to Github pull-request: https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk/pull/1836 Waiting on the question about relicensing, it looks like that file is listed in the ignored set anyway so maybe just leave it alone?

Comment on attachment 8551330 [details] Link to Github pull-request: https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk/pull/1836 Fixed the subprocess license change, there is no change there now. Also skipping this test for mochi-jp.

Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk/commit/e057268328fb3f0dfcbecd4d667ccbd7fedd35f5 Bug 1120491 - Include a test that all of the addon-sdk files use mpl 2 headers https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk/commit/aa95f35a028cb25a66c46bc5cd7fb74db6e38a91 Merge pull request #1836 from erikvold/1120491 Bug 1120491 - Include a test that all of the addon-sdk files use mpl 2 headers r=Mossop