Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] More about license files
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
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.