|RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Legal Documentation (was Example for feature.xml ?) (was:EM legal documentation pledge)|
While I appreciate the “all-powerful” reference… ;)
Really, we are all implementing guidelines that were put in place when the Eclipse Foundation was created, and in some cases before.
If there’s a lack of clarity in documentation (and some of what I am seeing may relate to that) – Bjorn and I will work together to clarify. 
If there are technical formatting issues in templates that are causing difficulty, by all means let us know – Bjorn and I work together to fix them. 
If there’s a concern about policy, I’m open to reviewing it and involving the necessary people in re-visiting a policy if that makes sense. 
Absent a change in policy (which may need to be reviewed by the IP Advisory Committee and the Board), we need to follow what has been outlined in the Software User Agreement and Guide to Legal Documentation. They are the current “rules of the game” and what we have told the community we will do. It is what we must do.
If you have specific concerns related to , , and , please let us know. Bjorn and I will go through the concerns identified to date and see what we can do to categorize them and clarify, fix, and investigate as need be.
Phone: +1.613.224.9461, x.229 (GMT -5)
[mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson
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* 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'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:
I just did "view
source" and then copied the source.
I find this BAD, BAD, BAD and I'm not going to adopt it;
for Webmaster / Legal to fix it
Thanks for finding that -
I've checked in a fix.
* Now my license.html does have a bulleted list as it always
had, but it references many more licenses than are in my
So, if I remove some from the bulleted list it's not the
original agreement any more;
That's ok; seems
reasonable to me.
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?
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.
Back to the top