| Re: [gef-dev] Re-license GEF Classic from EPL-1.0 to EPL-2.0 |
Maria-Theresa and Wayne,
I'm happy to announce that the migration process to EPL-2.0 is
completed: https://github.com/eclipse/gef-classic/pull/267
I preserved all copyright dates, copyright holders and contributors.
Cheers,
Alois
PS: Because of teaching duties I was not able to come to Ludwigsburg
this year. Saw the pictures on X. Hope you had a great time. I missed
it a lot.
On Sat, 2023-10-14 at 20:39 -0400, Eclipse Management Office EMO wrote:
> Awesome, thanks for the update!
>
> Wayne
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 3:04 PM Alois Zoitl <alois.zoitl@xxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > As nobody objected I created an issue [1] and I will start to
> > migrate
> > in the next days.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Alois
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/eclipse/gef-classic/issues/266
> >
> > On Fri, 2023-10-06 at 09:12 +0200, Alois Zoitl via gef-dev wrote:
> > > Thanks a lot Wayne for the Clarification.
> > >
> > > This is also how I understood it and why I started the process.
> > > But
> > > better save then sorry when we are talking about licensing.
> > >
> > > As sofar nobody was totally against the migration and as I think
> > > EPLv2 has several advantages for both contributors and users I
> > > would
> > > start the migration
> > > process next week.
> > >
> > > BR,
> > > Alois
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 21:47 -0400, Eclipse Management Office EMO
> > > via
> > > gef-dev wrote:
> > > > Hey folks.
> > > >
> > > > The EPL-2.0 FAQ covers this. It states (in part):
> > > >
> > > > > For open source projects (including Eclipse Foundation
> > > > > projects)
> > > > > under the EPL-1.0 who wish to re-license to the EPL-2.0 they
> > > > > should do so by simply updating the file headers and notices.
> > > > > (Please see 3.4 and 3.5 below.) Note that it is good
> > > > > community
> > > > > practice to discuss this change on your public mailing lists,
> > > > > and
> > > > > to make every attempt to ensure that: (a) downstream users
> > > > > are
> > > > > aware of the change, and (b) that there is a rough consensus
> > > > > amongst the committers that this is the right time to switch.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's a feature of the license that you can update to a new
> > > > version
> > > > of the license with no specific ceremony.
> > > >
> > > > The only consensus that you really need is that current project
> > > > team is okay with making the change. Lazy consensus is fine.
> > > >
> > > > We only ask that you tell the EMO that you've made the change.
> > > > You
> > > > don't have to ask for our permission or review.
> > > >
> > > > HTH,
> > > >
> > > > Wayne
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 5:10 AM Lars Vogel
> > > > <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > AFAIR the migration to EPL 2.0 is mandatory from the
> > > > > foundation
> > > > > and requires no agreement of the individual committers.
> > > > >
> > > > > At least we were forced to migrate in platform and we did not
> > > > > rechecked with wach contributor.
> > > > >
> > > > > Emo, please comment?
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards, Lars
> > > > >
> > > > > Edward Willink via gef-dev <gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am
> > > > > Di.,
> > > > > 3. Okt. 2023, 09:57:
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In principle it's easy, but even though there is no real
> > > > > > reason
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > disagree you need to get every committing author to agree.
> > > > > > For
> > > > > > OCL with
> > > > > > limited committers, this was little problem. For GEF, I can
> > > > > > imagine some
> > > > > > committers are no longer reachable. Perhaps you just get
> > > > > > agreement of
> > > > > > all significant or very recent committers and then get the
> > > > > > EF
> > > > > > to give
> > > > > > you a common sense waiver for the rest.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ed Willink
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 03/10/2023 08:30, Alois Zoitl via gef-dev wrote:
> > > > > > > Dear Friends of GEF!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Currently GEF Classic is still licensed under EPL-1.0. As
> > > > > > > EPL-1.0 is deprecated I would also like to re-license GEF
> > > > > > > Classic to EPL-2.0. According to the EPL
> > > > > > > itself this is possible with out any special procedure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However I would like to ask you if there is any reason to
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > do this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Looking forward to your feedback.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Alois
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > gef-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > > > > > > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > gef-dev mailing list
> > > > > > gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > > > > > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > The Eclipse Management Organization | Eclipse Foundation
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > gef-dev mailing list
> > > > gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > > > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gef-dev mailing list
> > > gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> > > https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
> >
>
>
> --
> The Eclipse Management Organization | Eclipse Foundation