Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Example for feature.xml ? (was:EM legal documentation pledge)

Hi, Bjorn,

I see that the Eclipse Foundation Software User Agreement is updated at to use the more appropriate CPL link.  However, the document is still dated March 17, 2005.

I think that needs to be updated to reflect the last change?



Christian W. Damus
Component Lead, Eclipse
IBM Rational Software

Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by:

06/01/07 05:53 PM

Please respond to
""        <>

"" <>
Re: [] Example for feature.xml ?           (was:EM  legal documentation pledge)

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:

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
   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
_______________________________________________ mailing list

Back to the top