[PATCH v2 3/3] ttest01: New test

Fri Oct 4 05:25:02 UTC 2019

On 02/10/2019 19:48, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:52 PM Sebastian Huber
> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>>
>> On 01/10/2019 23:40, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
>>>> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2018, 2019 embedded brains GmbH
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>>>> + * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>>>> + * are met:
>>>> + * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>>>> + *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>>> + * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>>> + *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>>> + *    documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
>>>> + * AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
>>>> + * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
>>>> + * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
>>>> + * LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
>>>> + * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
>>>> + * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
>>>> + * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
>>>> + * CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
>>>> + * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
>>>> + * POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * ALTERNATIVELY, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
>>>> + * Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License as
>>>> + * published by Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042
>>>> + * (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode).
>>>> + */
>>> Is there any standing for dual-licensing 2BSD with CC-BY-SA?
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/testsuites/libtests/ttest01/ttest01.doc b/testsuites/libtests/ttest01/ttest01.doc
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000000..37d9ff8535
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/testsuites/libtests/ttest01/ttest01.doc
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
>>>> +This file describes the directives and concepts tested by this test set.
>>>> +
>>>> +test set name: ttest01
>>>> +
>>>> +The test-*.c files must place the license header at the bottom of the file.
>>>> +This allows a copy and past of the test code into documentation sources and
>>> paste
>>>
>>>> +enables a constent line numbering between the documentation code fragements and
>>> constant ... fragments
>>>
>>>> +the actual test output.  For the same reason the T_TEST_OUTPUT() macros must be
>>>> +placed after the actual test cases.  The test source files are dual licensesd
>>> licensed
>>>> +BSD-2-Clause and CC-BY-SA-4.0.
>>>> +
>>> Thanks for the above explanation, it was helpful for this example. For
>>> future tests, do you anticipate any text here such as a short
>>> narrative description? Or this text should be deleted if it gets
>>> copy-paste into new tests?
>>
>> Everything which may end up in the documentation (such as code examples)
>> should be dual licensed BSD-2-Clause and CC-BY-SA-4.0 from my point of
>> view. Otherwise we would have to deal with BSD-2-Clause also in the
>> documentation set. Not every test needs this, just the one that may be
>> used in the documentation, e.g.
>>
>> https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/eng/test-framework.html#test-fixture
>>
> Yes, I understand, my point was that the explanation of this
> dual-licensing doesn't need to exist in every dual-licensed test. It
> just needs to be understood (by developers/test-writers, maybe users)

It is just in the ttest01.doc file. I think this should be enough.

Maybe we should change the

  * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
  * SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0

in

  * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause OR CC-BY-SA-4.0

since this seems to be the prevailing style in the Linux kernel for 
dual-licensed files.

> 
>> I would like to add also code examples to the RTEMS Classic API Guide
>> for the managers (not in the next weeks).
>>
> Examples for using them? I can see this would be nice to dual-license.

Yes, examples for using them.

> 
>> Another candidate for dual licensing are the interface specification
>> items. I would like to generate the API header files with Doxygen markup
>> and the API documentation from a single source - the interface
>> specification items.
>>
> I might have missed something. Do you mean there is plan for an
> interface specification using something like an interface definition
> language (IDL), and you would like to generate header files such as
> include/rtems/rtems/task.h, from IDL? Or something else?

Yes, but not IDL. My proposal is to use Doorstop YAML files with 
specialized attributes (key-value pairs) for the API (e.g. 
rtems_task_create(), but not internal stuff like _Thread_Set_name()).

-- 
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail  : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
PGP     : Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.