[eclipse.org-planning-council] Feature license.html content with non-sta

[Paul Elder <pelder@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All:

I'm experiencing increasing confusion
about license.html content. A long ramble follows, but here is my situation
is brief:

Problem: I have one plug-in that includes
Apache 1.1 source code. It has a correct about.html. It is included in
several features, all of which are use the March 17, 2005 Eclipse Foundation
Software User Agreement (SUA) as license.html and the Feature Update License.

Question: Do I need to modify any license.html
files?

I have seen contradictory messages on
this, and need a definitive answer. Most can safely ignore the rest, but
Janet and Bjorn should have a look at the details below ...

1) Inconsistent direction on license.html
content

Bjorn has stated recently:

• Every feature must have a license.html file.
  • The license.html file must contain the full text of all the applicable licenses for code in the feature.
  • The license.html file must have a bulleted table-of-contents at the top of the file listing all the licenses included in the file. (This is new.)
  • An example of this is coming soon.
  • The existence or nonexistence of the license.html file is currently checked by the tool; the text of the license.html is not yet checked but I hope to find a way to add that check this week.
  
  This contradicts  the Guide to Legal Documentation (http://www.eclipse.org/legal/guidetolegaldoc.php#LegalDoc) states in section 4.3:
  
  (I have flagged text of particular interest in bold and between >> and <<)
  
  The Feature License
  
  Each feature has a file named "license.html." We call this a "Feature License." In Eclipse.org builds, this file is an exact copy of the file "notice.html" that is found in the root directory of the build. >>In other words, it is the SUA. <<
  
  The Feature Update License
  
  Each feature has a file named "feature.properties." In that file is a property named "license&quot. This is known as the "Feature Update License." For Eclipse.org builds, >> the Feature Update License is an exact copy of the SUA <<although it is provided in plain text format. Feature Update Licenses must be delivered in that format whereas all the other files we’ve covered so far have been HTML files.
  
  
  But, then Bjorn has just stated in response to Rich Gronback:
  
  > Rich: 1.        Referring to the comment about updating our license.html for these orbit bundles, it seems there is a list of licenses referenced that cover our cases (Apache and EPL), so I did nothing.
  > Bjorn: That's fine. No need to change things if the licenses are covered.
  
  Maybe I don't need to do anything at all, although this does not jibe with Bjorn's earlier comments.
  
  BTW, a quick check of the platform's license.html's shows that RC2 is noncompliant with any new requirement, too, so at least I'm in good company :-)
  
  2) Assuming changed guidance on license.html, a common template seems essential. It is a poor service to our users to introduce this change (I presume in the name of improved clarity), and then muck it up with inconsistent presentation.
  
  3) What about notice.html? Right now, the legal guidelines say it should be the SUA. But, if we're modifying license.html to explicitly reference plug-in licenses, why stop there?
  
  4) The Eclipse SUA (dated March 17, 2005) that almost all of us currently use as notice.html, license.html and in the Feature Update License has a broken link to the IBM Public License 1.0. As far as I can see, the correct URL (at least until some webmaster changes it again) is:
  
  http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-ipl.html
  
  (Before anyone suggests we update all our documents with a new URL, I propose we find a webmaster at IBM, and persuade them to create or restore the original URL.)
  
  
  Paul Elder
  M2T JET (aka EMFT JET) Lead
  IBM Rational Software
  Tel: +1-613-599-3916
  E-mail: pelder@xxxxxxxxxx