Fix copyright header issue #62

RSingh1511 · 2026-02-11T09:20:46Z

Notes for Reviewer

Pre-Review Checklist for the PR Author

PR title is short, expressive and meaningful
Commits are properly organized
Relevant issues are linked in the References section
Tests are conducted
Unit tests are added

Checklist for the PR Reviewer

Commits are properly organized and messages are according to the guideline
Unit tests have been written for new behavior
Public API is documented
PR title describes the changes

Post-review Checklist for the PR Author

All open points are addressed and tracked via issues

References

Closes #

github-actions · 2026-02-11T09:21:12Z

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run //:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
2026/02/12 12:45:35 Downloading https://releases.bazel.build/8.3.0/release/bazel-8.3.0-linux-x86_64...
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.3.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 36184e86-b6b6-4b03-a418-df38e5ccd946
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
WARNING: For repository 'rules_python', the root module requires module version [email protected], but got [email protected] in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'bazel_skylib', the root module requires module version [email protected], but got [email protected] in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'rules_rust', the root module requires module version [email protected], but got [email protected] in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'rules_cc', the root module requires module version [email protected], but got [email protected] in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'aspect_rules_lint', the root module requires module version [email protected], but got [email protected] in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'buildifier_prebuilt', the root module requires module version [email protected], but got [email protected] in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'score_docs_as_code', the root module requires module version [email protected], but got [email protected] in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
WARNING: For repository 'googletest', the root module requires module version [email protected], but got [email protected] in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 4 packages loaded
Loading: 4 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
Loading: 4 packages loaded
    currently loading: 
WARNING: Target pattern parsing failed.
ERROR: Skipping '//:license-check': no such target '//:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package '' defined by /home/runner/work/logging/logging/BUILD
ERROR: no such target '//:license-check': target 'license-check' not declared in package '' defined by /home/runner/work/logging/logging/BUILD
INFO: Elapsed time: 13.310s
INFO: 0 processes.
ERROR: Build did NOT complete successfully
ERROR: Build failed. Not running target

github-actions · 2026-02-11T09:25:10Z

The created documentation from the pull request is available at: docu-html

PiotrKorkus · 2026-02-11T09:41:19Z

Hi @RSingh1511,

I originally mentioned the files with BMW header:
ERROR: Missing copyright header in: score/datarouter/include/dlt/dlt_protocol.h
ERROR: Missing copyright header in: score/datarouter/include/dlt/dlt_types.h
ERROR: Missing copyright header in: score/datarouter/include/dlt/dlt_common.h
ERROR: Missing copyright header in: score/datarouter/include/daemon/i_diagnostic_job_parser.h

Those checks were disabled for now until Anton is back as he is the only codeowner that can approve those changes.
https://github.com/RSingh1511/logging/blob/eee4c40189904bfc2b9e42ee14d5672021a9bbbd/BUILD#L27

Could you fix those and re-enable cr check for /score?

MaximilianSoerenPollak · 2026-02-11T09:42:54Z

Normally with tooling 1.1.0 2026 should not be a problem in the copyright header anymore.

- Add Eclipse Foundation headers to dlt_protocol.h, dlt_types.h, dlt_common.h - Fix duplicate header in i_diagnostic_job_parser.h - Re-enable copyright check for score

arkjedrz

Rust part is from 2026, issue must be elsewhere.

PiotrKorkus · 2026-02-11T10:21:00Z

score/datarouter/include/dlt/dlt_common.h

is it correct to have both headers same time?

As far as I know it theoretically is acceptable.
I do not remember what the outcome of the discussion was on how to handle this (e.g. Update the Year or do this).

Though my gut tells me just updating the year is correct (if the file has changed)

RSingh1511 · 2026-02-11T13:24:48Z

Rust part is from 2026, issue must be elsewhere.

Copyright year should match when the file was modified (2025), not the current date (2026). This was causing the copyright checker to fail.

arkjedrz

Added explicit notes - files first implemented in 2026 couldn't be last modified in 2025.

arkjedrz · 2026-02-11T14:27:10Z

score/mw/log/rust/score_log_bridge/examples/main.rs

Implemented in 2026, arguably based on pre-existing file.
https://github.com/eclipse-score/logging/pull/14/changes#diff-6dabbcf7aa08d9c9c3bb8146f54310aa96431a52daebc8f1b4ba6b273cc90401

arkjedrz · 2026-02-11T14:28:56Z

score/mw/log/rust/score_log_bridge/src/ffi.rs

Implemented in 2026.
https://github.com/eclipse-score/logging/pull/14/changes#diff-09efa1bfe28bbbb92e62fd39c5ffbe41f38439700f2feda4b27a9e5649f7764f

arkjedrz · 2026-02-11T14:29:16Z

score/mw/log/rust/score_log_bridge/src/lib.rs

Implemented in 2026.
https://github.com/eclipse-score/logging/pull/14/changes#diff-71c1b3ad9b124940a299a06674ff8eb20af49071fe7ce47089144d77f957063b

arkjedrz · 2026-02-11T14:29:39Z

score/mw/log/rust/score_log_bridge/src/score_log_bridge.rs

Implemented in 2026.
https://github.com/eclipse-score/logging/pull/14/changes#diff-2e765f4c4e013264ef1bc43bcf1a0ac2fa993a9d33d9dea24d72f134a930114b

arkjedrz · 2026-02-11T14:30:28Z

score/mw/log/rust/score_log_bridge_cpp_init/examples/example_lib.rs

Implemented in 2026.
https://github.com/eclipse-score/logging/pull/38/changes#diff-c7d0b6adc394b90a4e258634477dc1494dd044b33f4f99319247dc55e4898352

arkjedrz · 2026-02-11T14:30:41Z

score/mw/log/rust/score_log_bridge_cpp_init/ffi.rs

Implemented in 2026.
https://github.com/eclipse-score/logging/pull/38/changes#diff-70ce204cfcee6634696a5701a8a3cc7221c2776afc2eac35320bb5aa281db6dc

pawelrutkaq

Fix other comments please

RSingh1511 · 2026-02-12T04:36:08Z

Added explicit notes - files first implemented in 2026 couldn't be last modified in 2025.

Restore 2026 copyright for files implemented in January 2026

pawelrutkaq · 2026-02-12T06:33:52Z

score/datarouter/include/dlt/dlt_common.h

 * @licence app begin@
 * SPDX license identifier: MPL-2.0
 *
 * Copyright (C) 2011-2015, BMW AG


I did fast check and:

3. Can you relicense MPL-2.0 code as Apache-2.0? No (in general).

Imho this shall disappear (if you have a rights to do so) or we need eclipse guys or remove code.

Thanks for catching this!

@antonkri @rmaddikery - Please advise on handling these MPL-2.0 files

I would also mention that this is Already a problem as this code is in repo

Right, the MPL-2.0 files were already there. I'll revert my changes to them and keep the copyright check disabled for score/ as it was before.

Hey everyone,

my understanding (may be a wrong one) was, that MPL-2.0 license for third code is allowed: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/licenses/ .

So, we are basically reusing third party code from dlt and this one is under MPL license, which is in the approved list of third party licesense.

Do I misunderstand smth.?

Ye, I am just saying that probably you cannot have one file under MPL and Apache. But I dont mind if someone knows more, once You fix it feel free to approve ;) I jsut dont know probably ;) @RSingh1511 the check MUST be enabled ASAP - we cannot leave it disabled.

@pawelrutkaq now I get it, thanks!

@RSingh1511 please remove apache license header and keep MPL license for the files, where the code was copied from DLT project. Thanks!

@antonkri @pawelrutkaq - I can't satisfy both requirements:

MPL-only headers → copyright check fails

Enable copyright check → needs Apache headers on all

Hey @RSingh1511 ,

as I understand, the cr_checker tools allows to specify exclusions, see eclipse-score/tooling#101

Could you please adapt the workflow to exclude those two dlt files with MPL license from the check?

Thanks!

Hi @antonkri ,

Implemented! Added copyright_exclusions file. Copyright check now passes with MPL-2.0 files excluded.

Thanks!

.

Fix copyright header issue

eee4c40

RSingh1511 temporarily deployed to workflow-approval February 11, 2026 09:20 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

RSingh1511 marked this pull request as ready for review February 11, 2026 09:33

RSingh1511 requested review from antonkri, arsibo and pawelrutkaq as code owners February 11, 2026 09:33

Add Eclipse copyright headers to BMW-licensed DLT files

d811367

- Add Eclipse Foundation headers to dlt_protocol.h, dlt_types.h, dlt_common.h - Fix duplicate header in i_diagnostic_job_parser.h - Re-enable copyright check for score

RSingh1511 had a problem deploying to workflow-approval February 11, 2026 10:02 — with GitHub Actions Error

RSingh1511 had a problem deploying to workflow-approval February 11, 2026 10:02 — with GitHub Actions Failure

arkjedrz suggested changes Feb 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

PiotrKorkus reviewed Feb 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

arkjedrz suggested changes Feb 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

pawelrutkaq requested changes Feb 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'main' into rs/swp-244774

469732b

RSingh1511 temporarily deployed to workflow-approval February 12, 2026 04:06 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

RSingh1511 temporarily deployed to workflow-approval February 12, 2026 04:33 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

RSingh1511 requested review from MaximilianSoerenPollak, PiotrKorkus, arkjedrz and pawelrutkaq February 12, 2026 06:13

pawelrutkaq previously requested changes Feb 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

arkjedrz approved these changes Feb 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

RSingh1511 temporarily deployed to workflow-approval February 12, 2026 12:39 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

Enable copyright check with MPL-2.0 file exclusions

72dd96d

RSingh1511 force-pushed the rs/swp-244774 branch from c929ba1 to 72dd96d Compare February 12, 2026 12:45

RSingh1511 deployed to workflow-approval February 12, 2026 12:45 — with GitHub Actions Active

RSingh1511 temporarily deployed to workflow-approval February 12, 2026 12:45 — with GitHub Actions Inactive

RSingh1511 requested review from arkjedrz and pawelrutkaq February 12, 2026 12:48

Fix copyright header issue #62

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Fix copyright header issue #62

Conversation

RSingh1511 commented Feb 11, 2026

Notes for Reviewer

Pre-Review Checklist for the PR Author

Checklist for the PR Reviewer

Post-review Checklist for the PR Author

References

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

License Check Results

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

PiotrKorkus commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

MaximilianSoerenPollak commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

arkjedrz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

RSingh1511 commented Feb 11, 2026

Uh oh!

arkjedrz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pawelrutkaq left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

RSingh1511 commented Feb 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Feb 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading