Each project lead should concern himself or herself with meeting the
legal requirements for their particular project. While I understand the
desire to copy another project's files (prototype-based programming at
its best!), each project has a different legal situation - they include
different third-party packages, have different cryptography issues,
different source code and decompiler issues, etc. - and thus one
project cannot just copy another project's files. In other words,
whether the Platform project has the correct legal files should not be
an issue for DSDP projects (it is an issue for the EMO, but not for
Secondly, there is a nice certified example of all this in the Guide to Legal
Documentation: the directory structure of plug-ins and of features
is described (it even has indented trees of directories and
sub-directories), and the file contents of each file is described via
prose and links. While no document is every perfect, the descriptions
in the Guide are pretty good. If there are aspects of the documentation
that are confusing or ambiguous to you, please ask us for clarification
and we'll be happy to help.
And finally, we ask that you not just 'work around' these issues - for
example, by just copying another project's files and considering that
good enough. These legal issues may seem to be "pointless make work" to
some, but they are, in fact, essential - the larger Eclipse ecosystem
relies on these legal processes and part of Eclipse's wide adoption is
due to our strict legal cleanliness. We can work to make the processes
better, but we cannot just not follow the processes because we don't
Am I reading you right that
Platform will need to add fulltext of the epl as well as ASCII fulltext
of any other referenced 3rd party licenses?
May I ask again for a certified
example of a proper feature including correct license.html,
feature.properties, epl-v10.html and anything else probably needed.
Does anybody of the Europa
projects think they already got it right so we could copy from them?