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
feature.properties (and digest.zip) with
duplicates of text that no one really
reads,
and is also available in the bundle's
about_files
directories.
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.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems,
Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
Martin,
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:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Europa_Minutes_2007.03.04
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]
Etc.
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.
