[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ecf-dev] Some small ECF examples
- From: Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:54:43 -0400
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
Great. The examples source files and website should state this so consumers are aware.
You might consider using EDL as it is more compatible with the idea of examples. INAL but under EPL people modifying the example files would have to make their changes available. Various organizations have balked at this. Others simply ignore it. Neither situation is desirable. EDL on the other hand is a BSD style license that does not have that requirement. We put Toast (http://wiki.eclipse.org/Toast) under both EDL and EPL.
Examples that use third party libs may be able to claim a "works with" relationship rather than requiring full IP treatment for the third party lib. I for one would strongly support examples using this approach.
In short, there should be no barrier to putting the examples at eclipse.org itself (if that were desired). Note that that would also avoid the naming in issue.
On 2010-10-11, at 1:54 PM, Scott Lewis wrote:
> On 10/11/2010 10:25 AM, Jeff McAffer wrote:
>> Thanks for the pointer. It would be odd for an Eclipse project to point people outside eclipse.org for the official project examples. Actually, that brings up a couple things about these (and other?) examples.
>> - What is the licensing?
> The short answer to this is: EPL
> The long answer: it's EPL for code created by ECF team members (like the ECF examples by Pavel)...or contributed to ECF. But since ECF providers can be based upon/use third-party libraries (e.g. JavaGroups)...which have their own, possibly incompatible licensing (in the case of Javagroups...LGPL), the providers that *use* those libraries have both EPL components (the code that we create), and non-EPL-licensed code (e.g. JavaGroups/LGPL). And so the resulting providers have code that includes both EPL and other licenses.
> For the ECF examples and other pure-EPL contributions, these will typically go through the Eclipse IP process, but haven't done so yet (as they were just created/made available). We've done this or something similar with many previous contributions (e.g. Google summer of code projects, etc). Obviously for providers that are dependent upon other licenses (e.g. javagroups/LGPL) they won't go through the IP process because of the incompatible license for the third party library.
> ecf-dev mailing list