[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [egit-dev] any update on JGit @ Eclipse ?
|
torsdag 18 juni 2009 18:39:36 skrev Shawn O. Pearce:
> "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.
Ok, so this argument falls.
> 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.
We want the EDL to be respected, don't we?
> 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?
Again, we want the EDL to prevail. A license fork is not on my wish list.
> > > 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.
Eclipse still has the policies for maintaining IP clean code, which will apply
to an EDL-only subproject, and this must be the most important aspect,
so I really don't understand any other objections than the never-done-this-before,
with which I do not agree.
-- robin