Community
Participate
Working Groups
I'm guessing this is all packages, but I noticed in recent test of updating Java EE IDE from Helios SR1 to Helios SR2. I don't think I saw this during original testing, back in February, but maybe missed this path. The License for the "Java EE IDE Package" has a bunch of extra "\n\" at the end of lines, so shows up as a "different" license than the rest. First few lines are: ECLIPSE FOUNDATION SOFTWARE USER AGREEMENT\n\ June, 2010\n\ \n\ I know SR2 can't be fixed, but wanted to report, in case fixes needed for Indigo.
Created attachment 229645 [details] patch for all product definitions These seems to still be a problem in Kepler. You can "see" it in the content.jar (search for June, 2010). You can also see it if you try to update from M5 to M6 Kepler. The easiest way to "prove" its EPP, is then it offers to update Java EE package, click next, and it shows you the feature/product that it will update. On that screen click "more" (with EPP one selected) and you can see the old license. Other packages, such as I checked Automotive, when you click "more" it shows "no license" ... which doesn't seem right. Elsewhere, the license shows up correctly, such as after installed. I think this is because the Eclipse UI has two "sources" of getting the license text. One is from the content.jar/xml file, the other is from the installed bundles/features after they are installed. So ... be be perfectly accurate, it must be defined (correctly) in both spots.
If you agree Markus, I can probably commit what I have in my workspace ... just didn't want to do on my own, in case you think there is an easer solution.
Oh, and once you actually get to the "license screen", when upgrading/installing Java EE from EPP, there is still at least one that shows the ECLIPSE FOUNDATION SOFTWARE USER AGREEMENT June, 2010 Instead of Eclipse Foundation Software User Agreement February 1, 2011 In this case, it's a little harder to know where the "old" license comes from, but it'd be nice to fix in EPP Java EE Product, and see if that was the (only) source.
I don't know why I didn't answer to this bug report yet... Maybe it was fixed in earlier versions, too, but with this year's re-work for the new 2014 SUA this issue has been fixed for all packages.
