pointing out those issues. You had caught me in between updates before Friday,
so I apologize that things weren't quite in sync yet.
1) I've updated the feature.xml to match Eclipse Foundation
Software User Agreement
2) I've added in the bulleted license list to feature.xml
3) I've added in the text of the licenses to
4) I've updated the Eclipse Monkey version numbers to
Bjorn has been very busy with other Europa items, so I'm
not positive Bjorn has had a chance to look at the Eclipse Monkey license files
close enough to certify them as a "model", but I'm happy to assist in whatever
way I can.
The only item I'm not 100% clear on is if the feature.xml
file _also_ needs to include the text of the licenses, or if the bulleted TOC is
enough with links. To be safe, I've added them in for now, but that box is
already long enough with text.
Hello Paul, Ingo, Bjorn -
In the process of checking / preparing the proper legal
documentation for DSDP-TM, and not being aware of an "official" example for
feature.xml / license.html from Bjorn, I was checking the Eclipse Monkey
feature. I thought this might be a good example since you had certified
it's OK, it seemed small enough, I think Bjorn is somehow affiliated to
Dash/Monkey, and it contains the MPL non-EPL license.
I think that I found some flaws in
your legal documentation:
In feature.xml, you have the words of the EPL but I think it should be
the "Eclipse Foundation Software User Agreement"
In feature.xml, the bulleted-table-of-contents is
Your E-Mail references org.eclipse.eclipsemonkey 1.0.0 but the CVS
Repository has version 0.1.10
Perhaps I looked at the wrong place in CVS, but
feature.xml was last change on 5/30/2007 so I hope I did:
Please don't take this as a personal offence, I just wanted
to do it right myself and happened to take yours as example.
My understanding is that the current rules are documented
I next checked ECF, and it looked
better, but still not quite appropriate:
The text in feature.xml seems to resemble the EPL and/or some
about.html like format rather than the "Eclipse Foundation Software User
The license.html file has some odd formatting and appears to be more
like an about.html rather than a feature license
The Copyright in feature.xml only has year 2004 but should be 2004,
To be honest, I'm now really confused. I'm not
even sure any more whether Bjorn's instructions are
Because there was an older guideline that the license text
in feature.xml should just be an ASCII transcript of license.html -- but if
we're asked to have the "Eclipse Foundation Software User Agreement" in
feature.xml but the actual licenses in license.html this is no longer
Bjorn I think it's high time to provide an officially
certified example for this, or many projects will invest time into trying
to do it right but failing to do so.
Or does an official example already exist and I missed
Does anybody know of a concrete example that is certified
and verified by Bjorn / Janet to be correct?
I'm trying my best now for DSDP-TM, in order to hold
today's due date for the legal pledge.
But in the absence of an example, I cannot guarantee I'm
getting this right - so I'll pledge I've done it to the best of my
I certify that all features and plug-ins of
project Dash/Eclipse Monkey
contain the correct legal documentation.
Specifically, that the terms
and conditions governing Plug-ins and
Fragments are contained in files
named "about.html" and that the terms and
conditions governing Features
and Included Features are contained in files
named "license.html". I
certify that I have reviewed these legal files for
Eclipse Monkey Program Chair