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
From:
eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Bjorn
Freeman-Benson
Sent:
Friday, March 16, 2007 4:46 PM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council;
'Janet Campbell'
Subject:
Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] RE: Europa and UM
bugs
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.