On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Lincoln Baxter, III
<
lincolnbaxter@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@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."
>