Re: [egit-dev] any update on JGit @ Eclipse ?

["Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Sohn, Matthias" <matthias.sohn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The problem is the Eclipse Foundation has never done *pure* EDL
> > before.  All current projects not under the EPL are under a dual
> > EDL/EPL or APLv2/EPL (only Jetty uses this) license.
> 
> Any idea why Eclipse Foundation doesn't like pure EDL ?

I have heard a few arguments for why pure-EDL was less than
desirable:

Argument 1:

  Copying code from an EDL file to an EPL file in another project
  requires that the EPL file's header be updated with the notice
  information from the EDL file.  Code is often copied between
  projects on eclipse.org, often without paying any attention to
  notice information, because "everything" is EPL.

Counter-argument:

  Some JGit contributors understand the EPL to state that notice
  is still required to be given.  Consequently, if copying code
  from one EPL file to another, notice still must be maintained.
  Existing sloppy committer practices which are in violation of
  the EPL aren't justification to relicense under EPL.


Argument 2:

  The Board of Directors has thus far only approved dual EDL/EPL
  code.  Approving EDL-only may require directors to re-evaulate the
  licenses and the clauses.  Some of the directors appear to be more
  comfortable with a dual EDL/EPL, because they can simply ignore the
  EDL and consider the EPL, which is already an acceptable license.

Counter-argument:

  Uh.  What?  Nobody said serving on the board of directors was easy.


Argument 3:

  Dual EDL/EPL permits a member company to fork the project under
  a pure-EPL license, if they chose to do that.

Counter-argument:

  Uh.  OK.  Why does a member company require EPL to contribute to
  the project?  Most of JGit is already implemented.  Most of the
  critical IP related to Git doesn't belong to any member company.

  Locking up a (in comparsion to existing work) minor bug fix behind
  the EPL copyleft provision just to spite those who gave you the
  code under the EDL in the first place is evil business practices.
  We don't want to work with you under those conditions.

  But our existing choice in license (EDL) gives you freedom in
  distributing binary forks for which you are never forced to shared
  your precious change, so, what's the problem again?

 
> > The current legal opinion is that JGit can't be relicensed under a
> > dual EDL/EPL license as not all copyright holders consent to having
> > the code relicensed under EPL.  Replacing that code is non-trivial,
> > its a very large chunk of JGit; perhaps more than 40%.
> 
> Do you know which concerns the opposing copyright holders raise against 
> dual EDL/EPL license ?

See the counter-arguments above.

Basically, the relicense increases the complexity of the overall
project license, and places a burden on the existing copyright
holders to go figure out why the hell the EPL is so damn important
to people who have contributed absolutely nothing.  There is also
a risk of an EPL-only fork arising.

The existing EDL is a very simple license whose rights are very
clear to all involved.  It is compatible with just about any other
license out there, including any traditional closed source commerical
software licensing model.

-- 
Shawn.