|Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Example for feature.xml ? (was:EM legal documentation pledge)|
I can sympathize with your frustrations although I cannot entirely relieve them. My problem is that I am not the Eclipse Legal decision maker - at best I am a go-between between you all and Janet. In that I am not perfect (and boy am I aware of that).
However, (to quote the Rocky Horror Picture Show), "time is fleeting", so let me make some decisions anyway:
*I* think it is perfectly acceptable not to copy the same stuff over and over again. Whether Janet agrees, I cannot say. If I were you (or if I were you listening to me), I would do what I think is correct, send an email to Janet (cc Bjorn) saying "here is what I am assuming and what I have done".I do understand your concerns about copying the same stuff over and over again. Especially given that your small component features are typically not directly visible to the user because they are included in larger overall features.
I just did "view source" and then copied the source.I'm still pretty confused though: * The "Eclipse Foundation Software User Agreement" pointed to by Bjorn is a *.php file and not *.html so I cannot use it directly: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl/notice.php
Thanks for finding that - I've checked in a fix.I find this BAD, BAD, BAD and I'm not going to adopt it; filed https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=190452 for Webmaster / Legal to fix it
That's ok; seems reasonable to me.* Now my license.html does have a bulleted list as it always had, but it references many more licenses than are in my concrete feature. So, if I remove some from the bulleted list it's not the original agreement any more;
I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me. If I were you, I'd use my philosophy from above: do what you think is correct and tell Janet what you have done.furthermore, the EPL is included in my feature as epl-v10.html so why should I add yet another copy of it to the license.html?
Back to the top