[forge-dev] Migrating Forge to the EPL license- how we can all help

[Lincoln Baxter, III]

Good question. For now, link to the file in github here (or say which file
it is) so we can investigate :)

Thanks!
~Lincoln

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 1:34 PM, jdbjunior at gmail.com <jdbjunior at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hey Lincoln, what about files with no license header. Add the header?
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Lincoln Baxter, III
> <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think that was me ;)
> >
> > Do we need the file headers at all with the EPL?
> >
> >
> > /*
> >  * Copyright 2012 Red Hat, Inc. and/or its affiliates.
> >  *
> >  * Licensed under the Eclipse Public License version 1.0,
> >  * available at http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html
> >  */
> >
> > ~Lincoln
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Just a note on that license notice:
> >>
> >> There's nothing inherently wrong with that - it's the Apache License
> >> 2.0 standard notice recommended by the ASF but with the EPL
> >> substituted as the license.
> >>
> >> However, I recently recommended to a developer of a new EPL-licensed
> >> JBoss-related project to use a simpler notice:
> >>
> >>
> >>   Copyright 2012 Red Hat, Inc. and/or its affiliates.
> >>
> >>   Licensed under the Eclipse Public License version 1.0, available at
> >>   http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html
> >>
> >>
> >> That would be my recommendation here, just because we don't have any
> >> true standard and simpler legal notices seem preferable.
> >>
> >> (Substitute another copyright holder if appropriate, but for Red
> >> Hat-copyrighted source files use "Red Hat, Inc. and/or its affiliates"
> >> as above.)
> >>
> >> I dis-recommended the notice commonly used by Eclipse Foundation
> >> projects, for any of you who've seen those, because I find them
> >> annoying and they are not quite a 'standard'.
> >>
> >> - Richard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 03:17:32PM -0400, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
> >> > Hey everyone,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for "volunteering" to help with the EPL license effort.
> >> >
> >> > The first thing we should do to get started migrating the Forge
> license
> >> > is each
> >> > choose module(s) that we'd like to help migrate. Simply reply here
> with
> >> > the
> >> > forge/core module you are taking on, and we will try not to overlap.
> >> >
> >> > Once you've chosen your module(s), we'll need to take the following
> >> > steps.
> >> >
> >> >  1. In all of the source file, check the /** License */ header to
> ensure
> >> > that
> >> >     the (c) Copyright is owned by JBoss.
> >> >
> >> >       □ If it is, replace the header with the following License:
> >> >
> >> >         /**
> >> >          * Copyright 2012 Red Hat, Inc. and/or its affiliates.
> >> >          *
> >> >          * Licensed under the Eclipse Public License Version 1.0 (the
> >> >         "License");
> >> >          * you may not use this file except in compliance with the
> >> > License.
> >> >          * You may obtain a copy of the License at
> >> >          *
> >> >          *     http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html
> >> >          *
> >> >          * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,
> >> > software
> >> >          * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS"
> >> > BASIS,
> >> >          * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either
> express
> >> > or
> >> >         implied.
> >> >          * See the License for the specific language governing
> >> > permissions and
> >> >          * limitations under the License.
> >> >          */
> >> >
> >> >       □ If it is not, then record the name of the file and at the end
> of
> >> > your
> >> >         review, send a list of all such files discovered as a reply to
> >> > this
> >> >         thread so that we can review the necessary actions to take
> (most
> >> > likely
> >> >         no action will be required, and we will simply leave the
> header
> >> > in
> >> >         tact.)
> >> >
> >> >  2. Send your changes as a pull request for review.
> >> >
> >> >  3. Another committer will review your pull request and merge the
> >> > changes. Note
> >> >     - please DO NOT merge your own pull requests. We should have at
> >> > least two
> >> >     sets of eyes reviewing each license change. We don't want to get
> >> > this
> >> >     wrong!
> >> >
> >> >  4. Drink beer.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks folks! Let the re-licensing begin!
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Lincoln Baxter, III
> >> > http://ocpsoft.org
> >> > "Simpler is better."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lincoln Baxter, III
> > http://ocpsoft.org
> > "Simpler is better."
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > forge-dev mailing list
> > forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>



-- 
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.org
"Simpler is better."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/forge-dev/attachments/20120812/8f819fbf/attachment.html