Add files via upload

[rajapandi1234]

Summary by CodeRabbit

Chores

• Added license files for Apache 2.0, BSD 3-Clause, Eclipse Public License (v1.0 & v2.0), JSON, MIT, and Mozilla Public License 2.0.
• Added third-party dependency license notices.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

This pull request adds a comprehensive suite of open-source license files to the licenses/ directory, including Apache 2.0, BSD 3-Clause, Eclipse Public License (v1.0 and v2.0), JSON, MIT, and Mozilla Public License 2.0. A NOTICE file enumerates third-party dependencies organized by license type. No executable code or functional logic is modified.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
License Documentation licenses/Apache-2.0.txt, licenses/BSD-3.0.txt, licenses/EPL-1.0.txt, licenses/EPL-2.0.txt, licenses/JSON.txt, licenses/MIT.txt, licenses/MPL-2.0.txt	Adds seven standard open-source license texts with complete terms, conditions, warranties, and liability disclaimers.
Third-Party Attribution licenses/NOTICE	Adds notice file enumerating third-party dependencies grouped by license type (Apache 2.0, MIT, EPL, BSD, LGPL, CDDL, JSON, MPL-2.0) with copyright notices and authorship information.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• Create NOTICE #752 — Adds a NOTICE file for third-party license attribution across projects with similar content organization by license type.

Poem

🐰 A warren of rights, now bound in text,
Each license file in order set,
Apache, MIT, Eclipse too—
Compliance hops from old to new! 📜✨

Pre-merge checks

❌ Failed checks (1 inconclusive)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Title check	❓ Inconclusive	The title 'Add files via upload' is vague and generic, using non-descriptive terms that don't convey meaningful information about the specific license files being added.	Use a more descriptive title that specifies what files are being added, such as 'Add open source license files (Apache, MIT, EPL, BSD, JSON, MPL, and notice)' to clearly communicate the changeset.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[Mahesh-Binayak]

@CodeRabbit review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Actions performed

Review triggered.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 3

Fix all issues with AI Agents 🤖

In @licenses/MIT.txt:
- Around line 19-20: Remove the two duplicated "Footer" lines that were
accidentally appended to the MIT license text; locate the repeated "Footer"
strings near the end of the file and delete the extra occurrences so the file
matches the standard MIT license text with no stray duplicate footer lines.

In @licenses/NOTICE‎:
- Around line 77-78: The NOTICE file contains an orphaned EPL-1.0 entry
"Copyright (C) 1999-2015, QOS.ch" with no component name; update that entry to
either (a) add the missing component name (e.g., "Logback" or the correct
library) so it reads "EPL-1.0 — [Component Name]: Copyright (C) 1999-2015,
QOS.ch", or (b) if this is a duplicate of the Logback/LGPL attribution,
consolidate it into the existing Logback entry and remove the orphaned lines;
ensure the chosen change preserves license attribution and matches other NOTICE
formatting.
- Around line 114-124: The "JavaFX (openjfx) - GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath Exception"
entry is misclassified under the "CDDL License Components" heading; update the
NOTICE by removing or relocating that line and either create a new header
"GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath Exception Components" and place the "JavaFX (openjfx) -
GPL-2.0 WITH Classpath Exception" entry (with its copyright line) under it, or
if JavaFX is not actually GPL-licensed, replace the license label for the
"JavaFX (openjfx)" entry with the correct license; ensure the section headings
and entries remain consistently formatted.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7d25e8c and 7cfadc2.

📒 Files selected for processing (8)

• licenses/Apache-2.0.txt
• licenses/BSD-3.0.txt‎
• licenses/EPL-1.0.txt
• licenses/EPL-2.0.txt‎
• licenses/JSON.txt
• licenses/MIT.txt
• licenses/MPL-2.0.txt
• licenses/NOTICE‎

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 LanguageTool

licenses/Apache-2.0.txt

[style] ~51-~51: ‘any and all’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...ge, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses), ev...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_ANY_AND_ALL)

licenses/EPL-1.0.txt

[style] ~13-~13: ‘in conjunction with’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...eparate modules of software distributed in conjunction with the Program under their own license agr...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_IN_CONJUNCTION_WITH)

---

[grammar] ~28-~28: Use a hyphen to join words.
Context: ... needed, if any. For example, if a third party patent license is required to allo...

(QB_NEW_EN_HYPHEN)

---

[style] ~41-~41: Consider replacing this phrase with the adverb “reasonably” to avoid wordiness.
Context: ... and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used...

(IN_A_X_MANNER)

---

[style] ~53-~53: ‘with respect to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...are may accept certain responsibilities with respect to end users, business partners and the li...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_WITH_RESPECT_TO)

---

[style] ~53-~53: Consider a more concise word here.
Context: ...ged intellectual property infringement. In order to qualify, an Indemnified Contributor mus...

(IN_ORDER_TO_PREMIUM)

---

[style] ~71-~71: Consider a more concise word here.
Context: ...istribute copies of this Agreement, but in order to avoid inconsistency the Agreement is co...

(IN_ORDER_TO_PREMIUM)

licenses/MPL-2.0.txt

[style] ~47-~47: Consider removing “of” to be more concise
Context: ...tial grant or subsequently, any and all of the rights conveyed by this License. 1.10....

(ALL_OF_THE)

---

[style] ~106-~106: ‘with respect to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...te The licenses granted in Section 2.1 with respect to any Contribution become effective for e...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_WITH_RESPECT_TO)

---

[style] ~211-~211: As an alternative to the over-used intensifier ‘absolutely’, consider replacing this phrase.
Context: ...lf of any Contributor. You must make it absolutely clear that any such warranty, support, indemn...

(EN_WEAK_ADJECTIVE)

---

[style] ~223-~223: ‘with respect to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...y with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Covered Software due...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_WITH_RESPECT_TO)

---

[style] ~241-~241: ‘prior to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...non-compliance by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after You have come back into c...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_PRIOR_TO)

---

[style] ~246-~246: ‘prior to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...h Contributor, and You become compliant prior to 30 days after Your receipt of the notic...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_PRIOR_TO)

---

[style] ~253-~253: ‘any and all’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...tent, then the rights granted to You by any and all Contributors for the Covered Software u...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_ANY_AND_ALL)

---

[style] ~258-~258: ‘prior to’ might be wordy. Consider a shorter alternative.
Context: ...or Your distributors under this License prior to termination shall survive termination. ...

(EN_WORDINESS_PREMIUM_PRIOR_TO)

🔇 Additional comments (7)

licenses/BSD-3.0.txt‎ (1)

1-11: License text is correct.

The BSD 3-Clause license is properly formatted with all required conditions and disclaimers intact.

licenses/EPL-1.0.txt (1)

1-73: License text is correctly included as a standard document.

The Eclipse Public License v1.0 is a standardized legal document that must maintain its exact wording for validity and recognition. The static analysis style hints (e.g., wordiness concerns) are not applicable here, as modifying the text could create legal ambiguity or invalidate the license.

licenses/JSON.txt (1)

1-11: Verify JSON License attribution and version.

The standard JSON License lists copyright by JSON.org (2002), but this file attributes copyright to Yidong Fang (2006-2009). This appears to be the json-simple library variant rather than the canonical JSON.org license. Both are valid, but confirm this is the intended version for your project's dependencies.

licenses/MPL-2.0.txt (1)

1-373: LGTM: License text is complete and accurate.

The MPL 2.0 was released in January 2012 and this file contains the correct, complete, official text including all definitions, grants, responsibilities, and exhibits. The static analysis hints regarding wordiness should be disregarded—license texts are legal documents and must remain verbatim as published by the copyright holder to maintain their validity and enforceability.

licenses/EPL-2.0.txt‎ (1)

1-80: LGTM: License text is complete and accurate.

EPL 2.0 was announced on 24 August 2017 and this file contains the correct, official text with all definitions, grant of rights, requirements, commercial distribution terms, and liability disclaimers. The EPL is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and listed as a free software license by the Free Software Foundation (FSF).

licenses/Apache-2.0.txt (1)

1-73: Ensure the license text is unmodified from the official source.

Since this is a standard Apache License 2.0 text, it should match the official version exactly (as published by the Apache Software Foundation). Standard license texts must not be altered, even for stylistic improvements, as any modification could create legal ambiguity or invalidate the license.

The static analysis tool flagged "any and all" on line 51 as potentially wordy, but this phrase is part of the official Apache 2.0 license text and should remain unchanged.

Please verify that this file is the official, unmodified Apache License 2.0 text from the Apache Software Foundation by comparing it against the authoritative source at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.

licenses/NOTICE‎ (1)

1-141: Verify completeness of the NOTICE file against project dependencies.

The NOTICE file provides a comprehensive overview of major dependencies organized by license. However, compliance requires that all third-party dependencies with redistributable components are properly listed.

Please verify that:

• All dependencies in the project's build files (pom.xml, gradle.build, package.json, etc.) are represented in this NOTICE file
• Copyright years and attributions are current and accurate
• The list includes both direct and transitive dependencies as required by their respective licenses

You can automate this check by comparing the NOTICE entries against the output of your build system's dependency tree command.