| RE: [epf-dev] Clarity on EPL |
|
Ostensibly, I would think that they’re
free to incorporate OpenUP content, in whole or in part, into their own
original works of authorship, without incurring any obligation to the
community. However, if they modify the OpenUP/Basic (or other plugin)
content at all, they would be required by the terms of the EPL to contribute
that modified content to the project. Example: Write a TDD plugin that overrides the “Create Test Cases”
task = no obligation. Modify the OpenUP/Basic “Create Test
Cases” task in their own environment = required to share with EPF Nate From: epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Brian Lyons hiho, I am trying to understand the Eclipse Public License, but I
am having trouble translating its meaning to the real-world circumstances of
the usage, modification, and cannibalism possibilities for OpenUP. We have a customer who would get great value from organizing
their process assets from a SPEM perspective, managing and publishing them with
EPF Composer, and utilizing the process content from OpenUP. But they are
already down the path of doing an informally structured website full or process
content. If I propose OpenUP/Basic, there is a good chance they’ll
say “can I just grab <this chunk> and <this chunk>?” So is it legal in the Eclipse Public License for an
organization to just copy some guidelines and cut-and-paste some other snippets
into their process repository that is not using EPF Composer and then go on
about their business?
----------------- b |