Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [] RE: Europa and UM bugs

Thanks for the explanation, Bjorn.
I guess my main concern is that when feature X
includes feature Y (or Orbit bundle Z etc) and
that feature Y or bundle Z changes its contents
or version of license, all the features
which include it must be changed.
But I guess that in realilty that's true also now,
one would need to change the URLs. In the future,
the URLs and the full text.
So the remaining concern is that it blows up (and with
duplicates of text that no one really reads,
and is also available in the bundle's about_files
IMHO the value of a verbatim copy of license
text is that it's archived with the respective release
and thus available even if a product is retired and
the license's online URL is gone. That's achieved
through the about_files folder in the bundles. But
for the Update Manager's click-through licenses, I'd
think that a reference to live text on a URL
should be sufficient.
But of course, Janet's the boss here, my main
concern of maintainance is (mostly) gone and
I'll happily adopt the legal requirements once they
are clarified.

Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member


From: [] On Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 4:46 PM
To:; 'Janet Campbell'
Subject: Re: [] RE: Europa and UM bugs

This isn't my policy, it's the legal advice of the Eclipse Foundation's Legal department (i.e., Janet). I have included her on this email so that she can correct any misunderstandings and/or change the policy and/or reinforce my description. I also include the wiki page where you added your question:

My understanding is that the license text that shows up in the update manager for each feature must contain the complete text of the union of all the licenses applicable to all the code in that feature.

*I* suggest that the form be either:

1. If only EPL applies:

[the EPL license text]

2. Or, if more than one license applies:

The following licenses applies to code in this feature:
  • Eclipse Public License 1.0 (url to the EPL)
  • Apache Public License m.n (url to the APL)
  • BSD License x.y (url to the BSD)
The complete text of these licenses is included below:
[the EPL license text]
[the APL license text]
[the BSD license text]


I don't see how this is a nightmare to create or maintain - after all, you (the project) knows exactly which licenses apply to the code (through your IP Log experience) and you know where to find those licenses and the set of licenses is very small (Janet makes sure of that) and the set of licenses does not change very often. I do agree that it will take a few minutes once a year to update this before the big releases, but it's not an every day thing or a lot of work when you do do it. I could be wrong, of course...

- Bjorn

Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
Added this question which really bugs me:
Question from Martin: Really complete license text of sub-features / sub-bundles? This doesnt seem to scale. Current feature license text just refers to sub-lienses like APL etc. via HTTP link. Why isnt that sufficient? Nobody would read a license text that gets too long and it's a nightmare to create and maintain.

Back to the top