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. 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.) Send your changes as a pull request for review. 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! Drink beer. Thanks folks! Let the re-licensing begin! -- Lincoln Baxter, III http://ocpsoft.org "Simpler is better." _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

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."

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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev > _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com <jdbjunior(a)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(a)gmail.com&gt; 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&gt; >> 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(a)lists.jboss.org >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> forge-dev mailing list >> forge-dev(a)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."

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. 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.) Send your changes as a pull request for review. 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! Drink beer. Thanks folks! Let the re-licensing begin! -- Lincoln Baxter, III http://ocpsoft.org "Simpler is better." _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev

I do forge-shell. On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Jevgeni Zelenkov <jevgeni.zelenkov(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > The old license is commented using the regular comments /* */, the > new one suggests javadoc style comments /** */ > Shall we stick with the javadoc ones? > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III > <lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com&gt; 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. >> >> 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.) >> >> Send your changes as a pull request for review. >> >> 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! >> >> Drink beer. >> >> Thanks folks! Let the re-licensing begin! >> >> -- >> Lincoln Baxter, III >> http://ocpsoft.org >> "Simpler is better." >> >> _______________________________________________ >> forge-dev mailing list >> forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > forge-dev mailing list > forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev _______________________________________________ forge-dev mailing list forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev