[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [gef-dev] Re-license GEF Classic from EPL-1.0 to EPL-2.0
|
Thanks a lot Wayne for the Clarification.
This is also how I understood it and why I started the process. But better save then sorry when we are talking about licensing.
As sofar nobody was totally against the migration and as I think EPLv2 has several advantages for both contributors and users I would start the migration
process next week.
BR,
Alois
On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 21:47 -0400, Eclipse Management Office EMO via gef-dev wrote:
> Hey folks.
>
> The EPL-2.0 FAQ covers this. It states (in part):
>
> > For open source projects (including Eclipse Foundation projects) under the EPL-1.0 who wish to re-license to the EPL-2.0 they should do so by simply updating the file headers and notices. (Please see 3.4 and 3.5 below.) Note that it is good community practice to discuss this change on your public mailing lists, and to make every attempt to ensure that: (a) downstream users are aware of the change, and (b) that there is a rough consensus amongst the committers that this is the right time to switch.
> >
>
>
> It's a feature of the license that you can update to a new version of the license with no specific ceremony.
>
> The only consensus that you really need is that current project team is okay with making the change. Lazy consensus is fine.
>
> We only ask that you tell the EMO that you've made the change. You don't have to ask for our permission or review.
>
> HTH,
>
> Wayne
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 5:10 AM Lars Vogel <lars.vogel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > AFAIR the migration to EPL 2.0 is mandatory from the foundation and requires no agreement of the individual committers.
> >
> > At least we were forced to migrate in platform and we did not rechecked with wach contributor.
> >
> > Emo, please comment?
> >
> > Best regards, Lars
> >
> > Edward Willink via gef-dev <gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am Di., 3. Okt. 2023, 09:57:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > In principle it's easy, but even though there is no real reason to
> > > disagree you need to get every committing author to agree. For OCL with
> > > limited committers, this was little problem. For GEF, I can imagine some
> > > committers are no longer reachable. Perhaps you just get agreement of
> > > all significant or very recent committers and then get the EF to give
> > > you a common sense waiver for the rest.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Ed Willink
> > >
> > > On 03/10/2023 08:30, Alois Zoitl via gef-dev wrote:
> > > > Dear Friends of GEF!
> > > >
> > > > Currently GEF Classic is still licensed under EPL-1.0. As EPL-1.0 is deprecated I would also like to re-license GEF Classic to EPL-2.0. According to the EPL
> > > > itself this is possible with out any special procedure.
> > > >
> > > > However I would like to ask you if there is any reason to not do this.
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to your feedback.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Alois
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > gef-dev mailing list
> > > > gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gef-dev mailing list
> > > gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
>
>
> --
> The Eclipse Management Organization | Eclipse Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> gef-dev mailing list
> gef-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/gef-dev
