|Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] More about license files|
Hi Bjorn, Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:
Not much more then you're already doing IMHO. But perhaps we should pick-up fairly early on all those improvements that you and others see the potential of so that we get as much requirements in place as possible in time for Ganymede. Personally, I'd love to see more discussions around this.So, in conclusion, Ed, I understand that you don't agree with these policies (ref 189548#c7 <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=189548#c7>). I'm not wild about the way the whole thing is turning out either. Given that and the restrictions I'm under, what can I do to help you (and everyone else) with Europa?
Many of the features released with Europa are pure tools and as such, they help build software but are not intended to be included in the software. As an example, some Europa projects store their source in the Eclipse.org SVN repo. Yet, we cannot release a project that references SVN. The rationale being that if we do, some consumer _might_ include this in their own project and be tainted by the SVN licensing. What we release however, is a tool intended to make life easier for people doing the same thing we do at Eclipse.org. Namely maintaining source in SVN. Doing so, will not taint the source and Eclipse.org has already acknowledged that fact.
Another good example is Maven. It consists of some 40 different jar files. It has hundreds of thousands of users. They don't include it in their software that they produce. Maven is only a tool they use for assembly and building. But can we include this (or even reference it) in Europa? Nope!
There are several other examples and the number increases by the day...My view of the whole thing is that Eclipse.org is enforcing policies in a way that is too strict for it's own good. Although many organizations surely feel safe and secure using what's hosted at Eclipse, millions are using open source that has not gone through this rigorous IP-process and are quite happy taking on the responsibility in doing so. I'd love to see the Ganymede release divided into two sections. One that can be considered the IP-approved "vault" containing projects that can be safely used within other products. Everything in there must go through all of the legal motions. The other one has a disclaimer stuck to it, moving the responsibility to the end-user and may include and/or reference other open source that has not been IP-approved.
Kind Regards, Thomas Hallgren
Back to the top