That's a question I usually like to avoid being asked, since there's
no clear anwer. :) It doesn't depend on the license, though. There are
advantages and disadvantages to having per-file notices that to me
seem to balance out. There's no single standard practice in open
source development. I generally believe it should be up to the
developers to decide whether they want per-file license notices or
not.
However, if you choose not to have per-file license notices, there
should be *some* indication to the world of what rights they have to
use the code. I would recommend at least having a top-level file
indicating that the code is licensed under the EPL (that can just be
the same language as would be in the recommended header), as well as
inclusion of a copy of the EPL (which you should have regardless of
whether you have per-file notices or not).
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 02:40:28AM -0400, Lincoln Baxter, III 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(a)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."