Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [hono-dev] Migration to EPL 2.0

+1 from my side for EPLv2, too.

 

Regarding the headers: I would stick to the already active strategy to use the “generic” header and mention the contributors/copyright holders in the NOTICE file.

The only question I have : this does not reflect anywhere which copyright holder worked on which file. But then, to mention them in the file header directly is not completely sufficient either, since the specific lines

can have different authors etc.

So only git knows the whole truth, and I would expect this to be sufficient from the legal side (?).

 

So if we do not have any concerns regarding this, I would vote for the “generic” header for EPLv2 also!

 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Karsten Frank

(INST/ECS4)
Bosch Software Innovations GmbH | Ullsteinstr. 128 | 12109 Berlin | GERMANY
| www.bosch-si.com


Sitz: Berlin, Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg; HRB 148411 B
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Stefan Ferber, Michael Hahn



From: hono-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx <hono-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Jens Reimann
Sent: Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2018 08:59
To: hono developer discussions <hono-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [hono-dev] Migration to EPL 2.0

 

+1 for switching to EPLv2, in any case!

 

What I don't really understand though is what style of copyright headers to use. I think currently we have two different styles in Hono. One containing the contributors, the other a generic one. Now the EPLv2 FAQ asks to use the one containing the contributors. I would to see that we could adopt the generic one and track contributors in, I think it was the NOTICE file.

 

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Hudalla Kai (INST/ECS4) <kai.hudalla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi committers and contributors,

as part of the review of our latest release, the IoT Program Management Council
has asked, if and when we would be migrating to EPL 2.0. It seems that the
Eclipse Foundation would be much in favor of seeing all of its projects going
that way.

Personally, I have not problem with migrating to EPL 2.0 since it makes
commercial use of our software even easier than under EPL 1.0.

The Eclipse Foundation has created an FAQ [1] which aims at providing answers
around the EPL in general and the differences between EPL 1.0 and 2.0.

My understanding of [2] is that we may elect to distribute Hono under EPL 2.0 and
then simply change the source code headers and accompanying legal docs
accordingly.

WDYT?

[1] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.hz76esowpykz
[2] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.tci84nlsqpgw

--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards

Kai Hudalla
Chief Software Architect

Bosch Software Innovations GmbH
Ullsteinstr. 128
12109 Berlin
GERMANY
www.bosch-si.com

Registered Office: Berlin, Registration Court: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg; HRB
148411 B
Chairman of the Supervisory Board: Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Lücke; Managing Directors:
Dr. Stefan Ferber, Michael Hahn
_______________________________________________
hono-dev mailing list
hono-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/hono-dev




--

Jens Reimann
Senior Software Engineer / EMEA ENG Middleware
Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 14
85630 Grasbrunn
Germany
phone: +49 89 2050 71286
_____________________________________________________________________________

Red Hat GmbH, www.de.redhat.com,
Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Paul Argiry, Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill


Back to the top