Re: [egit-dev] any update on JGit @ Eclipse ?

[Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

torsdag 18 juni 2009 18:39:36 skrev Shawn O. Pearce:
> "Sohn, Matthias" <matthias.sohn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > The problem is the Eclipse Foundation has never done *pure* EDL
> > > before.  All current projects not under the EPL are under a dual
> > > EDL/EPL or APLv2/EPL (only Jetty uses this) license.
> > 
> > Any idea why Eclipse Foundation doesn't like pure EDL ?
> 
> I have heard a few arguments for why pure-EDL was less than
> desirable:
> 
> Argument 1:
> 
>   Copying code from an EDL file to an EPL file in another project
>   requires that the EPL file's header be updated with the notice
>   information from the EDL file.  Code is often copied between
>   projects on eclipse.org, often without paying any attention to
>   notice information, because "everything" is EPL.
> 
> Counter-argument:
> 
>   Some JGit contributors understand the EPL to state that notice
>   is still required to be given.  Consequently, if copying code
>   from one EPL file to another, notice still must be maintained.
>   Existing sloppy committer practices which are in violation of
>   the EPL aren't justification to relicense under EPL.

Ok, so this argument falls. 

> Argument 2:
> 
>   The Board of Directors has thus far only approved dual EDL/EPL
>   code.  Approving EDL-only may require directors to re-evaulate the
>   licenses and the clauses.  Some of the directors appear to be more
>   comfortable with a dual EDL/EPL, because they can simply ignore the
>   EDL and consider the EPL, which is already an acceptable license.
> 
> Counter-argument:
> 
>   Uh.  What?  Nobody said serving on the board of directors was easy.

We want the EDL to be respected, don't we?

> Argument 3:
> 
>   Dual EDL/EPL permits a member company to fork the project under
>   a pure-EPL license, if they chose to do that.
> 
> Counter-argument:
> 
>   Uh.  OK.  Why does a member company require EPL to contribute to
>   the project?  Most of JGit is already implemented.  Most of the
>   critical IP related to Git doesn't belong to any member company.
> 
>   Locking up a (in comparsion to existing work) minor bug fix behind
>   the EPL copyleft provision just to spite those who gave you the
>   code under the EDL in the first place is evil business practices.
>   We don't want to work with you under those conditions.
> 
>   But our existing choice in license (EDL) gives you freedom in
>   distributing binary forks for which you are never forced to shared
>   your precious change, so, what's the problem again?

Again, we want the EDL to prevail. A license fork is not on my wish list.

> > > The current legal opinion is that JGit can't be relicensed under a
> > > dual EDL/EPL license as not all copyright holders consent to having
> > > the code relicensed under EPL.  Replacing that code is non-trivial,
> > > its a very large chunk of JGit; perhaps more than 40%.
> > 
> > Do you know which concerns the opposing copyright holders raise against 
> > dual EDL/EPL license ?
> 
> See the counter-arguments above.
> 
> Basically, the relicense increases the complexity of the overall
> project license, and places a burden on the existing copyright
> holders to go figure out why the hell the EPL is so damn important
> to people who have contributed absolutely nothing.  There is also
> a risk of an EPL-only fork arising.
> 
> The existing EDL is a very simple license whose rights are very
> clear to all involved.  It is compatible with just about any other
> license out there, including any traditional closed source commerical
> software licensing model.

Eclipse still has the policies for maintaining IP clean code, which will apply
to an EDL-only subproject, and this must be the most important aspect, 
so I really don't understand any other objections than the never-done-this-before, 
with which I do not agree.

-- robin