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

[Lincoln Baxter, III]

Ok guys, update:

Let's take Richard's advice and go with:

/*
 * 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
 */

Sorry if you've already replaced a few files! I just want to make sure we
do this right.
~Lincoln

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III <
lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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."
>



-- 
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/20120813/b3882408/attachment-0001.html