Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Example for feature.xml ? (was:EM leg

[Christian Damus <cdamus@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Bjorn,

I see that the Eclipse Foundation Software
User Agreement is updated at eclipse.org to use the more appropriate CPL
link.  However, the document is still dated March 17, 2005.

I think that needs to be updated to
reflect the last change?

Cheers,

Christian

---

Christian W. Damus
Component Lead, Eclipse OCL
and EMF-QTV
IBM
Rational Software

Bjorn Freeman-Benson <bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

06/01/07 05:53 PM

Please respond to
"eclipse.org-planning-council"        <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To	"eclipse.org-planning-council" <eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Example for feature.xml ?           (was:EM  legal documentation pledge)

Ed, Martin,
I can sympathize with your frustrations although I cannot entirely relieve
them. My problem is that I am not the Eclipse Legal decision maker - at
best I am a go-between between you all and Janet. In that I am not perfect
(and boy am I aware of that).

However, (to quote the Rocky Horror Picture Show), "time is fleeting",
so let me make some decisions anyway:
I do understand your concerns about copying the same
stuff
over and over again. Especially given that your small component
features are typically not directly visible to the user because
they are included in larger overall features.
  
*I* think it is perfectly acceptable not to copy the same
stuff over and over again. Whether Janet agrees, I cannot say. If I were
you (or if I were you listening to me), I would do what I think is correct,
send an email to Janet (cc Bjorn) saying "here is what I am assuming
and what I have done".

I'm still pretty confused though:
  * The "Eclipse Foundation Software User Agreement" pointed
    to by Bjorn is a *.php file and not *.html so I cannot 
    use it directly:
    http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl/notice.php
  
I just did "view source" and then copied the
source.
      I find this BAD, BAD, BAD and
I'm not going to adopt it;
      filed https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=190452
      for Webmaster / Legal to fix it
  
Thanks for finding that - I've checked in a fix.
  * Now my license.html does have a bulleted
list as it always
    had, but it references many more licenses than are in my
    concrete feature.
    So, if I remove some from the bulleted list it's not the
    original agreement any more; 
That's ok; seems reasonable to me.
furthermore, the EPL is included
    in my feature as epl-v10.html so why should I add yet another
    copy of it to the license.html?
  
I don't know. It doesn't make sense to me. If I were you,
I'd use my philosophy from above: do what you think is correct and tell
Janet what you have done.

- Bjorn
_______________________________________________
eclipse.org-planning-council mailing list
eclipse.org-planning-council@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-planning-council