On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 11:36 AM Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Clarify that FSF copyright notices in tests are incorrect for
> contributions under DCO terms. Clarify the sentence about copying
> existing tests to clarify that it is only referring to copying the code
> in the test file, rather than just copying an existing file as a
> template for a new test.
>
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> * doc/xml/manual/test.xml: Improve discussion of copyright
> notices in new test cases.
> * doc/html/manual/test.html: Regenerate.
> ---
>
> I noticed that these docs could be interpreted to say that adding the
> copyright notices is always a valid choice ("If you do want to"). That's
> not true though.
>
LGTM.
>
> libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/test.html | 11 ++++++++---
> libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/test.xml | 12 +++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/test.html
> b/libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/test.html
> index f6776f2e0415..497ee1ad36e5 100644
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/test.html
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/doc/html/manual/test.html
> @@ -389,10 +389,15 @@ cat 27_io/objects/char/3_xin.in |
> a.out</pre></dd><dt><span class="term"><code c
> We no longer require that, because most tests are uninteresting
> and contain no "original authorship", and so would not be protected
> by copyright anyway.
> - If you do want to add the FSF copyright notice and GPL licence text,
> + Adding the FSF copyright notice to new tests is incorrect unless you
> + (or your employer) have a copyright assignment on file with the FSF,
> + or if the test contains code copied from another test under FSF
> copyright.
> + In particular, new tests that contain original code are not copyright
> FSF
> + if contributed under the <a class="link" href="
> https://gcc.gnu.org/dco.html"; target="_top">DCO</a> terms.
> + If new tests do add the FSF copyright notice and GPL licence text,
> then the first copyright year should correspond to the date
> - the file was checked in to version control. If a test is copied from
> - an existing file it should retain the copyright years from the
> + the file was checked in to version control. If the test code is copied
> + from an existing file it should retain the copyright years from the
> original file.
> </p><p>
> The DejaGnu instructions say to always return <code
> class="literal">0</code>
> diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/test.xml
> b/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/test.xml
> index f0139dfd7937..df49f56b0d03 100644
> --- a/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/test.xml
> +++ b/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/test.xml
> @@ -650,10 +650,16 @@ cat 27_io/objects/char/3_xin.in |
> a.out</programlisting>
> We no longer require that, because most tests are uninteresting
> and contain no "original authorship", and so would not be protected
> by copyright anyway.
> - If you do want to add the FSF copyright notice and GPL licence text,
> + Adding the FSF copyright notice to new tests is incorrect unless you
> + (or your employer) have a copyright assignment on file with the FSF,
> + or if the test contains code copied from another test under FSF
> copyright.
> + In particular, new tests that contain original code are not copyright
> FSF
> + if contributed under the <link xmlns:xlink="
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";
> + xlink:href="https://gcc.gnu.org/dco.html";>DCO</link> terms.
> + If new tests do add the FSF copyright notice and GPL licence text,
> then the first copyright year should correspond to the date
> - the file was checked in to version control. If a test is copied from
> - an existing file it should retain the copyright years from the
> + the file was checked in to version control. If the test code is copied
> + from an existing file it should retain the copyright years from the
> original file.
> </para>
>
> --
> 2.49.0
>
>
