[egit-dev] RE: Clarification on IP process with EDL

["Janet Campbell" <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Confirmed.

>emo-ip-team, can you please confirm that contributions to JGit
>which is licensed under only the EDL can still follow figure 1 &
>on page 1 of the IP process (contributed by a project committer
>or employee of same company as committer)?

Please note that we are in the process of updating our documentation to
reflect different licensing approaches at Eclipse (e.g. JGit).  In the
interim, if you have any questions please ask.  

Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 6:38 PM
To: emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: EGit developer discussion
Subject: Clarification on IP process with EDL

Matthias Sohn <matthias.sohn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Robin appeared a bit confused over the IP Review flag, so I added
> > a section to our Contributor Guide describing the categories
> 
> You cited the Eclipse legal poster in the Contributor Guide 
> http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf 
> hence I (again) went through it and it seems to me that for JGit changes 
> we always have to go through the steps described by figures 20 - 27 on 
> page 2 of the poster since JGit sources (and consequently also all 
> JGit patches) are licensed under EDL and not EPL. That would imply that 
> we need to file a CQ for all JGit changes. Hopefully we can work with 
> EMO towards a simpler process ...

They can't seriously mean a CQ per commit.  100% EPL isn't the
same as 100% EPL/EDL, and yet there are EPL/EDL projects hosted
at Eclipse following this process.

emo-ip-team, can you please confirm that contributions to JGit
which is licensed under only the EDL can still follow figure 1 &
2 on page 1 of the IP process (contributed by a project committer
or employee of same company as committer)?

-- 
Shawn.