I'm experiencing increasing confusion
about license.html content. A long ramble follows, but here is my situation
Problem: I have one plug-in that includes
Apache 1.1 source code. It has a correct about.html. It is included in
several features, all of which are use the March 17, 2005 Eclipse Foundation
Software User Agreement (SUA) as license.html and the Feature Update License.
Question: Do I need to modify any license.html
I have seen contradictory messages on
this, and need a definitive answer. Most can safely ignore the rest, but
Janet and Bjorn should have a look at the details below ...
1) Inconsistent direction on license.html
Bjorn has stated recently:
Every feature must have a license.html file.
The license.html file must contain the full text of all
the applicable licenses for code in the feature.
The license.html file must have a bulleted table-of-contents
at the top of the file listing all the licenses included in the file. (This
An example of this is coming soon.
The existence or nonexistence of the license.html file
is currently checked by the tool; the text of the license.html is not yet
checked but I hope to find a way to add that check this week.
This contradicts the Guide to
Legal Documentation (http://www.eclipse.org/legal/guidetolegaldoc.php#LegalDoc)
states in section 4.3:
(I have flagged text of particular interest
in bold and between >> and <<)
The Feature License
Each feature has a file named "license.html."
We call this a "Feature License." In Eclipse.org builds, this
file is an exact copy of the file "notice.html" that is found
in the root directory of the build. >>In other words, it is the
The Feature Update License
Each feature has a file named "feature.properties."
In that file is a property named "license". This is known
as the "Feature Update License." For Eclipse.org builds, >>
the Feature Update License is an exact copy of the SUA <<although
it is provided in plain text format. Feature Update Licenses must be delivered
in that format whereas all the other files we’ve covered so far have been
But, then Bjorn has just stated in response
to Rich Gronback:
> Rich: 1. Referring
to the comment about updating our license.html for these orbit bundles,
it seems there is a list of licenses referenced that cover our cases (Apache
and EPL), so I did nothing.
> Bjorn: That's fine. No need to change things if the
licenses are covered.
Maybe I don't need to do anything at
all, although this does not jibe with Bjorn's earlier comments.
BTW, a quick check of the platform's
license.html's shows that RC2 is noncompliant with any new requirement,
too, so at least I'm in good company :-)
2) Assuming changed guidance on license.html,
a common template seems essential. It is a poor service to our users to
introduce this change (I presume in the name of improved clarity), and
then muck it up with inconsistent presentation.
3) What about notice.html? Right now,
the legal guidelines say it should be the SUA. But, if we're modifying
license.html to explicitly reference plug-in licenses, why stop there?
4) The Eclipse SUA (dated March 17,
2005) that almost all of us currently use as notice.html, license.html
and in the Feature Update License has a broken link to the IBM Public License
1.0. As far as I can see, the correct URL (at least until some webmaster
changes it again) is: