Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Example for feature.xml ? (was: EMlegal documentation pledge)
Title: EM legal documentation pledge
Hi Martin,

Thanks for pointing out those issues. You had caught me in between updates before Friday, so I apologize that things weren't quite in sync yet.
 
1) I've updated the feature.xml to match Eclipse Foundation Software User Agreement
2) I've added in the bulleted license list to feature.xml from license.html
3) I've added in the text of the licenses to feature.xml
4) I've updated the Eclipse Monkey version numbers to match.
 
Bjorn has been very busy with other Europa items, so I'm not positive Bjorn has had a chance to look at the Eclipse Monkey license files close enough to certify them as a "model", but I'm happy to assist in whatever way I can.
 
The only item I'm not 100% clear on is if the feature.xml file _also_ needs to include the text of the licenses, or if the bulleted TOC is enough with links. To be safe, I've added them in for now, but that box is already long enough with text.
 
Best,
Ingo

From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:03 AM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: [eclipse.org-planning-council] Example for feature.xml ? (was: EMlegal documentation pledge)
Importance: High

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

Back to the top