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

[Thomas Hallgren <thomas@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Bjorn,

Bjorn Freeman-Benson wrote:
> 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?
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.

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