Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » General (non-technical) » Eclipse Foundation » another license question
another license question [message #20174] Fri, 03 June 2005 00:58 Go to next message
Steve Blass is currently offline Steve Blass
Messages: 121
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Suppose one distributes an RCP application in object form licensed in
accordance with EPL for a one year term and the license term expires
without the licensee requesting the source code. Would the licensor
have any obligation to maintain or to ever provide the source code to
anyone assuming the particular implementation is never re-licensed or
re-distributed to anyone in object code form again?

Just Curious ;)
Re: another license question [message #20277 is a reply to message #20174] Fri, 03 June 2005 19:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Philippe Ombredanne is currently offline Philippe Ombredanne
Messages: 386
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
"Steve Blass" <swb@aurora.phys.utk.edu> wrote in message
news:d7oo17$m3r$1@news.eclipse.org...
> Suppose one distributes an RCP application in object form licensed in
> accordance with EPL for a one year term and the license term expires
> without the licensee requesting the source code. Would the licensor
> have any obligation to maintain or to ever provide the source code to
> anyone assuming the particular implementation is never re-licensed or
> re-distributed to anyone in object code form again?

AFAIK Yes.
The EPL terms apply to the EPL portion and therefore do not expire,
regardless of your other license.
IANAL & TINLA.
Re: another license question [message #20287 is a reply to message #20277] Sat, 04 June 2005 00:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steve Blass is currently offline Steve Blass
Messages: 121
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Philippe Ombredanne wrote:

> "Steve Blass" <swb@aurora.phys.utk.edu> wrote in message
> news:d7oo17$m3r$1@news.eclipse.org...
>
>>Suppose one distributes an RCP application in object form licensed in
>>accordance with EPL for a one year term and the license term expires
>>without the licensee requesting the source code. Would the licensor
>>have any obligation to maintain or to ever provide the source code to
>>anyone assuming the particular implementation is never re-licensed or
>>re-distributed to anyone in object code form again?
>
>
> AFAIK Yes.
> The EPL terms apply to the EPL portion and therefore do not expire,
> regardless of your other license.
> IANAL & TINLA.
>
>

I understand that this is not a legal advice forum. I would be
stunned (yet pleasantly) to see a post begin "IAMFLjack! and you should
do zyx!!"; especially if the screen name was not Rick James. b**h! It
just ocurred to me that I might be able to let an old ugly source tree
die and move on without having to keep the backup tapes in multiple
offsite fireproof boxes forever.

The most encouraging license development lately is that we see the
WTP project delivering an installation package that includes third party
jars :) (yeah buddy!).

On the other (E)MF hand... If (remember Illias?) Eclipse is
independent, then why are we waiting for IBM legal review of the CDO
contribution to the EMF codebase? A good answer might be that legal
review is part of the overall IBM contribution to Eclipse Foundation
projects. But then, I would expect an occasional IAMFLjack! kind of
posting Here.

OBTW, have you seen the most recent addition to the Eclipse website on
Legal Whatchamahoozits... that helps.

WTF-eh?

Trogdor







IANAT,

Steve
Re: another license question [message #20297 is a reply to message #20287] Sat, 04 June 2005 08:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: merks.ca.ibm.com

Steve,

We are not waiting for an IBM review of the CDO contribution, we are
waiting for the Eclipse.org legal review of the CDO contribution. We're
getting close to done on that front now. Let me assure you that Eclipse
really is an independent organization with a mind and processes of it's
own! ;-)

Once I understand the external contribution process better, and am
successful in getting through all the steps in the process for one
instance, I intend to follow up with people like you (and other EMF
corner "targets") who also have interesting and useful things to
contribute. I've proposed the EMFT project to in a bid to make it
easier for individuals to get involved with contributing. There is just
such a huge set of very cool things that can be done with EMF (and of
course all of Eclipse for that matter) and even just one person can
accomplish an awful. I just love Eclipse! Alright, I'll try to get a
life now...


Steve Blass wrote:

> Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
>
>> "Steve Blass" <swb@aurora.phys.utk.edu> wrote in message
>> news:d7oo17$m3r$1@news.eclipse.org...
>>
>>> Suppose one distributes an RCP application in object form licensed in
>>> accordance with EPL for a one year term and the license term expires
>>> without the licensee requesting the source code. Would the licensor
>>> have any obligation to maintain or to ever provide the source code to
>>> anyone assuming the particular implementation is never re-licensed or
>>> re-distributed to anyone in object code form again?
>>
>>
>>
>> AFAIK Yes.
>> The EPL terms apply to the EPL portion and therefore do not expire,
>> regardless of your other license.
>> IANAL & TINLA.
>>
>>
>
> I understand that this is not a legal advice forum. I would be
> stunned (yet pleasantly) to see a post begin "IAMFLjack! and you
> should do zyx!!"; especially if the screen name was not Rick James.
> b**h! It just ocurred to me that I might be able to let an old ugly
> source tree die and move on without having to keep the backup tapes in
> multiple offsite fireproof boxes forever.
>
> The most encouraging license development lately is that we see the
> WTP project delivering an installation package that includes third
> party jars :) (yeah buddy!).
>
> On the other (E)MF hand... If (remember Illias?) Eclipse is
> independent, then why are we waiting for IBM legal review of the CDO
> contribution to the EMF codebase? A good answer might be that legal
> review is part of the overall IBM contribution to Eclipse Foundation
> projects. But then, I would expect an occasional IAMFLjack! kind of
> posting Here.
>
> OBTW, have you seen the most recent addition to the Eclipse website on
> Legal Whatchamahoozits... that helps.
>
> WTF-eh?
>
> Trogdor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IANAT,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
Re: another license question [message #20336 is a reply to message #20297] Wed, 08 June 2005 00:24 Go to previous message
Steve Blass is currently offline Steve Blass
Messages: 121
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Ed,

I apologize for repeating bad information then. After finishing that
rant I realized two things, maybe three, but two for sure. One was that
providing source is the right thing to do, and the second is that that's
good because there's a copy of the source on the distribution master.

The third thing? Dennis Leary sang it best.

-
Steve




Ed Merks wrote:
> Steve,
>
> We are not waiting for an IBM review of the CDO contribution, we are
> waiting for the Eclipse.org legal review of the CDO contribution. We're
> getting close to done on that front now. Let me assure you that Eclipse
> really is an independent organization with a mind and processes of it's
> own! ;-)
>
> Once I understand the external contribution process better, and am
> successful in getting through all the steps in the process for one
> instance, I intend to follow up with people like you (and other EMF
> corner "targets") who also have interesting and useful things to
> contribute. I've proposed the EMFT project to in a bid to make it
> easier for individuals to get involved with contributing. There is just
> such a huge set of very cool things that can be done with EMF (and of
> course all of Eclipse for that matter) and even just one person can
> accomplish an awful. I just love Eclipse! Alright, I'll try to get a
> life now...
>
>
> Steve Blass wrote:
>
>> Philippe Ombredanne wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Blass" <swb@aurora.phys.utk.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:d7oo17$m3r$1@news.eclipse.org...
>>>
>>>> Suppose one distributes an RCP application in object form licensed in
>>>> accordance with EPL for a one year term and the license term expires
>>>> without the licensee requesting the source code. Would the licensor
>>>> have any obligation to maintain or to ever provide the source code to
>>>> anyone assuming the particular implementation is never re-licensed or
>>>> re-distributed to anyone in object code form again?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK Yes.
>>> The EPL terms apply to the EPL portion and therefore do not expire,
>>> regardless of your other license.
>>> IANAL & TINLA.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I understand that this is not a legal advice forum. I would be
>> stunned (yet pleasantly) to see a post begin "IAMFLjack! and you
>> should do zyx!!"; especially if the screen name was not Rick James.
>> b**h! It just ocurred to me that I might be able to let an old ugly
>> source tree die and move on without having to keep the backup tapes in
>> multiple offsite fireproof boxes forever.
>>
>> The most encouraging license development lately is that we see the
>> WTP project delivering an installation package that includes third
>> party jars :) (yeah buddy!).
>>
>> On the other (E)MF hand... If (remember Illias?) Eclipse is
>> independent, then why are we waiting for IBM legal review of the CDO
>> contribution to the EMF codebase? A good answer might be that legal
>> review is part of the overall IBM contribution to Eclipse Foundation
>> projects. But then, I would expect an occasional IAMFLjack! kind of
>> posting Here.
>>
>> OBTW, have you seen the most recent addition to the Eclipse website on
>> Legal Whatchamahoozits... that helps.
>>
>> WTF-eh?
>>
>> Trogdor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IANAT,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
Previous Topic:Creation Reviews and UTC
Next Topic:New Top-Level Projects Created
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Apr 21 11:44:19 EDT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01678 seconds