Now we have the MPL 2.0 license statement in every source file, we should have a test added to "testcfx" to make sure files contain it. Otherwise new files will forget to include the license statement. We'd need the test to skip third-party licensed code such as simplejson.

Let's see, at first glance, this should scan all .py files in python-lib/cuddlefish (ignoring the sibling directories), and all .js and .md files in packages/ and examples/ . It's probably sufficient to check that each file contains the URL of the MPL2 (http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/) . Incidentally, I just looked at a random .md file and saw that the english punctuation smushes together with the URL in a potentially bad way: <!-- This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public - License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this - file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. --> OTOH, going to that URL (which ends in "2.0/." , with a trailing period) immediately redirects to "2.0/", without the period. So we're probably safe, and don't need to edit every single file in the repo to change it to the more-browser-friendly "2.0/ ." .

(In reply to Brian Warner [:warner :bwarner] from comment #1) > and all .js and .md files in packages/ and examples/ . Should that be a hardcoded-list of folders in packages? (eg, we don't want to complain to an addon developer who sticks their addons in packages/, right?)

oh, good point.. added that. This patch scans python-lib/cuddlefish and packages/{addon-kit,api-utils,test-harness}, looking for .js and .py files, and grepping each for the MPL2 URL. It has an exception for _version.py (which is generated from an upstream tool, and in the public domain). Does that set of files sound right? It currently flags 17 files: % python python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/test_licenses.py -v test (__main__.Licenses) ... The following files are missing an MPL2 header: packages/api-utils/data/worker.js packages/api-utils/tests/test-process.js packages/api-utils/tests/test-uuid.js python-lib/cuddlefish/docs/__init__.py python-lib/cuddlefish/docs/webdocs.py python-lib/cuddlefish/packaging.py python-lib/cuddlefish/templates.py python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/bug-588119-files/packages/explicit-icon/lib/main.js python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/bug-588119-files/packages/implicit-icon/lib/main.js python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/bug-588119-files/packages/no-icon/lib/main.js python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/bug-588661-files/packages/bar/lib/bar-loader.js python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/bug-588661-files/packages/foo/lib/foo-loader.js python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/linker-files/three/tests/nontest.js python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/linker-files/three/tests/test-one.js python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/linker-files/three/tests/test-two.js python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/preferences-files/packages/no-prefs/lib/main.js python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/preferences-files/packages/simple-prefs/lib/main.js FAIL ====================================================================== FAIL: test (__main__.Licenses) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/test_licenses.py", line 31, in test self.fail("%d files are missing an MPL2 header" % len(self.missing)) AssertionError: 17 files are missing an MPL2 header ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ran 1 test in 0.074s FAILED (failures=1) Next, I'll go through those files and add the headers. If you think it's missing some files, let me know, I'll update the scanner. Alternatively, if you think that tests/ (specifically python-lib/cuddlefish/tests/) aren't worth scanning, I can exclude those.

> It currently flags 17 files: I'm surprised it flags so many old files. But it's right. I assume they were just missed in bug 715558, unless there's some reason for excluding them that I don't see. > Next, I'll go through those files and add the headers. If you think it's > missing some files, let me know, I'll update the scanner. We also include the license declaration for: - all MD files for the built-in packages under /packages - JS, CSS, and MD files under /doc except syntaxhighlighter, which is third-party - PY files under /python-lib/mozrunner - batch files under /bin - JS, CSS, HTML, and MD files under /examples

Ok, I updated the scanner to include your notes. This attachment has a list of all the files that were scanned: does it look complete? (I had to exclude (three distinct copies of) jquery.js too)

and here's the updated scanner patch. Still doesn't include the actual MPL2 additions.

also, mozrunner/killableprocess.py and winprocess.py already have their own license headers, looks like MIT or maybe BSD, so I guess I'll add those to the skip list

I added MPL2 headers to everything the tool spotted, but found four exceptions.. what should we do with them?: * examples/library-detector/data/library-detector.js : says it's adapted from an MIT licensed original * packages/api-utils/tests/test-process.js: has a MPL1.1/GPL2.0/LGPL2.1 tri-license header * python-lib/mozrunner/killableprocess.py: has a header, looks like it comes from python, looks BSDish * python-lib/mozrunner/winprocess.py: very similar, but says "The MIT License"

Gerv, I wonder if you could help us out here? Some SDK files didn't get an MPL 2.0 license statement, back in bug 715558. While some of those files are clearly third-party and should keep their original license, some seem to be original (for instance, the list in comment 3 above). I'm not sure whether this was intentional or not. Also, the four Brian's noted in comment 8 seem questionable - I'd guess that original files should be MPL 2.0, while any derived files should keep their original license. Meaning that these: > * examples/library-detector/data/library-detector.js : says it's adapted > from an MIT licensed original > * python-lib/mozrunner/killableprocess.py: has a header, looks like it comes > from python, looks BSDish > * python-lib/mozrunner/winprocess.py: very similar, but says "The MIT > License" ... should keep their original license, but this: > * packages/api-utils/tests/test-process.js: has a MPL1.1/GPL2.0/LGPL2.1 > tri-license header ...should be upgraded to the MPL 2.0. But some expert help would be great.

I didn't intentionally exclude any files apart from externally-sourced files. So if I missed a tri-licensed file, that was an accident and you should feel free to fix it. Files sourced from elsewhere should keep their original licence. So comment 9 seems right to me. Gerv

Ok, here's the final patch. It adds the test_licenses.py (with a list of files/directories being skipped), adds MPL2 headers to the files that don't have it, and updates that one MPL1/tri-licensed file to MPL2. (the actual git branch has these in three separate patches, but this diff submitted for review collapses them all together)

Comment on attachment 602054 [details] [diff] [review] grep most SDK files for an MPL2 URL, add MPL2 where necessary Looks good to me, thanks Brian! In "test_licenses.py" lines 73-74 are commented-out code and should probably be removed. It might be helpful to have a comment block in there describing what's covered by the test, since it's a bit obscure.

Commits pushed to master at https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk/commit/78eaa8a99150d3b9167c633070d1f432394e70bd Bug 730807: test that all appropriate SDK files have an MPL2 header Some specific files are skipped because they have their own non-MPL2 license headers. A list of these files are included at the top of test_licenses.py . Only specific directories are scanned. In particular, some third-party libraries (used under other licenses) in python-lib are skipped, as is the "syntaxhighlighter" JS library. We also skip any additional packages added to packages/ . https://github.com/mozilla/addon-sdk/commit/adb36f0119d52da317004fbc23e5a088da6f31e5 Bug 730807: test that all appropriate files have an MPL2 header. r=@wbamberg

Great, landed with your recommended changes.