Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re: [] OneMore Final Word on Legal Stuff

Hi Bjorn,
I do not want to work around.
I desperately try to get things right.
And looking at the silence from many other project leads, it looks like
I'm one of few who desperatly try getting it right, so I won't take a blame
for "working around". But in order to get it right, it's much easier working
off a certified example.
For instance -
   what is the really correct epl-v10.html?
   how is it correctly transcribed into plain ASCII for
   what about the list of licenses mentioned in the SUA, if fewer licenses apply to a given feature?
   do we really need to add plaintext of all embedded licenses into
For instance, when projects transcribed the SUA from html into plain ASCII they got it
wrong because a ™ entity was transcribed into "?" rather than "(TM)". See
I honestly think that if we all work off a blueprint, the chances of getting it right are higher
(i.e. MUCH higher) than if every project tries to interpret the "Guide to Legal Documents"
on its own.
The Platform has a long history of being the blueprint for other projects, so I had hoped
finding a correct example there. But for me it looks like it's also broken. Or am I wrong?
Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member

From: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 12:07 AM
Cc: Cross project issues
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev] Re: [] OneMore Final Word on Legal Stuff

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 DSDP).

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 like them.


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,, 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?

Back to the top