[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Example for feature.xml ? (was: EM legal documentation pledge)
|
Martin,
I've also requested a bit of help clarifying whether what we've done with
the new smaller EMF features is correct. In particular, our feature.xml
looks like this:
<license url="%licenseURL">
%license
</license>
and the feature.properties looks like this:
# "licenseURL" property - URL of the "Feature License"
# do not translate value - just change to point to a locale-specific HTML
page
licenseURL=http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl/notice.php
along with this
# "license" property - text of the "Feature Update License"
# should be plain text version of license agreement pointed to be
"licenseURL"
license=\
ECLIPSE FOUNDATION SOFTWARE USER AGREEMENT\n\
January 28, 2004\n\
\n\
Usage Of Content\n\
blah blah blah
These are the only two files in the feature, hence minimizing the footprint
of the features. I'm concerned that this is a violation of the rules, even
though it has the benefit that a) we'll always reference the right license
on the web and b) we've reduce the footprint that results from 23 copies of
this license. But is it correct?
I've also expressed concerns that because the properties file contains a
complete copy of the license, the two can quite easily be out of sync. I
wonder if anyone has compared the two? No one has asked us to explicitly,
but no doubt there is an implicit expectation; it's best to be explicit
though. I also wonder if doing this copy is actually necessary (and if so,
whether translating the license hundreds of times across all the projects
and all the features makes sense)? It would seem to make more sense to
refer to a single copy of the license maintained by the foundation and for
there to be translations of the license also maintained by the foundation.
But I suppose that makes it hard to show something to the user when they
click...
So I'm waiting to hear back on this issue of needing the physical
license.html to be nested in the feature verses referenced on the web
before I can or will certify that we've done everything correctly for
EMF/XSD/SDO.
Ed Merks/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
mailto: merks@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3265 (t/l 969)
"Oberhuber,
Martin"
<Martin.Oberhuber To
@windriver.com> "eclipse.org-planning-council"
Sent by: <eclipse.org-planning-council@eclip
eclipse.org-plann se.org>
ing-council-bounc cc
es@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject
[eclipse.org-planning-council]
06/01/2007 06:02 Example for feature.xml ? (was: EM
AM legal documentation pledge)
Please respond to
"eclipse.org-plan
ning-council"
<eclipse.org-plan
ning-council@ecli
pse.org>
Hello Paul, Ingo, Bjorn -
In the process of checking / preparing the proper legal documentation for
DSDP-TM, and not being aware of an "official" example for feature.xml /
license.html from Bjorn, I was checking the Eclipse Monkey feature. I
thought this might be a good example since you had certified it's OK, it
seemed small enough, I think Bjorn is somehow affiliated to Dash/Monkey,
and it contains the MPL non-EPL license.
I think that I found some flaws in your legal documentation:
In feature.xml, you have the words of the EPL but I think it should
be the "Eclipse Foundation Software User Agreement"
In feature.xml, the bulleted-table-of-contents is missing
Your E-Mail references org.eclipse.eclipsemonkey 1.0.0 but the CVS
Repository has version 0.1.10
Perhaps I looked at the wrong place in CVS, but feature.xml was last change
on 5/30/2007 so I hope I did:
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.dash/org.eclipse.eclipsemonkey-feature/feature.xml?revision=1.20&root=Technology_Project&view=markup
Please don't take this as a personal offence, I just wanted to do it right
myself and happened to take yours as example.
My understanding is that the current rules are documented in
http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/eclipse.org-planning-council/msg00591.html
I next checked ECF, and it looked better, but still not quite appropriate:
The text in feature.xml seems to resemble the EPL and/or some
about.html like format rather than the "Eclipse Foundation Software
User Agreement"
The license.html file has some odd formatting and appears to be more
like an about.html rather than a feature license
The Copyright in feature.xml only has year 2004 but should be 2004,
2007
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.ecf/features/org.eclipse.ecf.core-feature/feature.xml?revision=1.107&root=Technology_Project&view=markup
To be honest, I'm now really confused. I'm not even sure any more whether
Bjorn's instructions are correct.
Because there was an older guideline that the license text in feature.xml
should just be an ASCII transcript of license.html -- but if we're asked to
have the "Eclipse Foundation Software User Agreement" in feature.xml but
the actual licenses in license.html this is no longer true.
Bjorn I think it's high time to provide an officially certified example for
this, or many projects will invest time into trying to do it right but
failing to do so.
Or does an official example already exist and I missed it?
Does anybody know of a concrete example that is certified and verified by
Bjorn / Janet to be correct?
I'm trying my best now for DSDP-TM, in order to hold today's due date for
the legal pledge.
But in the absence of an example, I cannot guarantee I'm getting this right
- so I'll pledge I've done it to the best of my knowledge.
Thanks,
--
Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Paul Colton
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 7:17 AM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: [eclipse.org-planning-council] EM legal documentation pledge
I certify that all features and plug-ins of project Dash/Eclipse Monkey
contain the correct legal documentation. Specifically, that the terms
and conditions governing Plug-ins and Fragments are contained in files
named "about.html" and that the terms and conditions governing Features
and Included Features are contained in files named "license.html". I
certify that I have reviewed these legal files for the following
features and plug-ins:
Features:
org.eclipse.eclipsemonkey 1.0.0
Plugins:
org.eclipse.eclipsemonkey 1.0.0
org.eclipse.eclipsemonkey.doms 1.0.0
org.eclipse.eclipsemonkey.help 1.0.0
org.eclipse.eclipsemonkey.lang.javascript 1.0.0
org.eclipse.eclipsemonkey.ui 1.0.0
org.mozilla.javascript 1.6.2 (Orbit)
Regards,
Paul Colton
Eclipse Monkey Program Chair
CEO, Aptana, Inc.
http://www.aptana.com_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council
