Closed Bug 813063 Opened 12 years ago Closed 6 years ago

Missing LICENSE files etc.

Categories

(Core :: WebRTC, defect, P4)

defect

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla66
Tracking Status
firefox66 --- fixed

People

(Reporter: gerv, Assigned: ng)

Details

Attachments

(2 files)

Among many other examples, the file media/webrtc/trunk/peerconnection.gyp says: # Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license # that can be found in the LICENSE file in the root of the source # tree. An additional intellectual property rights grant can be found # in the file PATENTS. All contributing project authors may # be found in the AUTHORS file in the root of the source tree. None of those 3 files apears in media/webrtc/trunk . Also, media/webrtc/signaling/signaling.gyp says: # Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be # found in the LICENSE file. There is no LICENSE file in media/webrtc/signaling . Could these files be obtained from the original webrtc repo and checked in here? The reason this is an issue is that I have a license scanner which, when confronted with "see file X", checks for the existence of file X to make sure we've processed it and know what the licensing terms are. If file X is missing, this is a little tricky. :-) Gerv
webrtc-blocking- since I think license.html is correct, but I'll definitely get this done soon;
Assignee: nobody → rjesup
Priority: -- → P3
Whiteboard: [WebRTC] [blocking-webrtc-]
The actual files (except for AUTHORS) are already there in the media/webrtc/trunk/src directory. This includes the top-level files from webrtc.org that just refer to the files in src. The signaling.gyp file was copied from webrtc/trunk, and so should really point to the LICENSE file there
So, this bug is just as much about the automated checking as it is about following the license. My script recognises certain standard blocks, such as "look for the LICENSE file further up the tree", which various projects use. It then looks for such a LICENSE file. Adding a note below the block saying "actually, it's somewhere else" means I would need to code for that specifically. Which is not awesome. What would be great is if we could check in an appropriate LICENSE file into the highest common directory covering all the code the license file affects. So that would suggest, I think, that we need one in media/webrtc/. Does that make sense? Gerv
Well, the problem is that this is an upstream file, and if we move it or change it then we're carrying local mods to it, which means merge conflicts, etc. Also, the LICENSE it at the highest level where it generally applies to the things below it; if we move it higher things get more confusing (especially to media/webrtc, where we have MPL code we wrote, signaling (under MPL), etc). There is one file in media/webrtc/trunk/peerconnection.gyp that refers to media/webrtc/trunk/LICENSE, which didn't exist in our copy. There are also some files in subdirs that refer to that root LICENSE (some in media/webrtc/trunk/build for example). Overall, it's messy. We could clone src/LICENSE to LICENSE instead of having a pointer. We'd get merge conflicts if they ever change it, and we'd need to add it to the patches to be applied on import (I need to rebuild that procedure since the original one I made worked, but let huge amounts of history (webrtc.org files we deleted, etc) leak into our repo) and so I've been merging by hand). While looking at this, I found some additional items within media/webrtc/trunk/src mostly for individual files. Not sure yet if any of them will impact licenses.html; the one I looked at so far is just documenting it's public domain.
I wouldn't worry about scanning for other licenses by hand; that's what my script does :-) I'm a little confused as to the situation. Are you saying that the upstream WebRTC tree has problems where files say "see the LICENSE file in the root" and yet there's no LICENSE file in the root? If it doesn't have such problems, why does our copy? It's OK that there are some MPLed files interspersed with the others. I'm not worried about that. But if a license statement refers to a LICENSE file, we need to have that file in the place where the statement says to look for it. Does that help? Gerv
rjesup: what's the next move here? Gerv
Flags: needinfo?(rjesup)
rjesup: ping? Gerv
backlog: --- → webRTC+
Rank: 35
Whiteboard: [WebRTC] [blocking-webrtc-]
Mass change P3->P4 to align with new Mozilla triage process.
Priority: P3 → P4
Adding a missing license file to the root of the WebRTC.org source
Flags: needinfo?(rjesup)
Assignee: rjesup → na-g
Pushed by na-g@nostrum.com: https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/c5f89e53d636 Add LICENSE file to root of WebRTC.org source r=dminor
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla66
Depends on: 1646904
No longer depends on: 1646904
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: