[forge-dev] Migrating Forge to the EPL license- how we can all help
Richard Fontana
rfontana at redhat.com
Sat Aug 11 14:42:18 EDT 2012
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 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."
More information about the forge-dev
mailing list