Hello Bjorn, Hello Janet,
Below is what I intend to do in order to comply with the
licensing rules.
Please comment on the points listed below until tomorrow
morning so
I can go forward without doing duplicate
work.
If you approve of my procedure, this could become an
example for others
so it might be in everybody's interest to get this sorted
out real soon.
Based on the following three items I have identified where
DSDP-TM does
and based on some research on what others do, this is what
I want to do:
1. license.html should include full text of all
licenses.
I will not do this but
rather do the following:
Full text of applicable licenses
(epl-v10.html; Apache licenses in some cases)
will be shipped in the feature,
but shipped as a separate file as it has always
been.
The
license.html file will include a hyperlink to the downloaded
static copy of the
referenced licenses.
I do NOT want to merge it into
license.html, because license.html gets
visible only
after installing the product, and at that time a reference to
the
downloaded static copy is just as good
as having it part of the license.html.
The advantage of the downloaded static
copy is that it's more easily identifiable
as being a real verbatim copy of the
original license.
2. license.html must have a bulleted table-of-contents
at the top
I will add the bulleted table-of
contents. It will look as follows:
Feature License Table of
Contents
This feature is licensed under the
following terms:
* Eclipse
Foundation Software User Agreement
* Eclipse Public
License v1.0
Below this table of contents, the
existing Foundation Software
User Agreement will be shown. I'm
currently unsure if I'd like
to include a verbatim copy, or with the
section "SOME OF
THESE OTHER LICENSE AGREEMENTS..." and
the list
of licenses
removed.
The table of contents will hyperlink as
follows:
* User Agreement ->
hyperlink to lower down in the file
* EPL -> hyperlink
to static local copy of epl-v10.html
3. feature.xml must also contain the same bulleted
table-of-contents
I will not add it to
feature.xml but rather to feature.properties.
Since this is for the Update Manager
feature update license,
the hyperlinks must be different than in
the license.html file
because at that time, the static copies
are not yet available.
So, the table of contents will look like
this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feature License Table of Contents
This feature is licensed under the
following terms:
* Eclipse
Foundation Software User Agreement
(See
below)
* Eclipse Public
License v1.0
If any of the hyperlinks mentioned above
does not work for you, you
will get a static copy of the license
installed when you download the
feature. Please check the feature's
license.html file after downloading.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale: I do not want to copy the
license text into feature.properties
everywhere. This is for people who
want to read the licenses before they
download stuff from update manager.
So, they do have internet access at this
time, and the chance that they
are able to go to the links for reading
the lienses is big. For cases where
it doesn't work, they can download and
inspect the license after downloding
Thanks,
--
Martin
Oberhuber
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP
PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
Ed, Martin,
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 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:
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl/notice.php
I just did "view source" and then copied the source.
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
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
concrete feature.
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.
- Bjorn