Of course, part of the value proposition
of a plug-in architecture for OpenUP is to avoid precisely this copy and paste situation.
Any company with their own “secret sauce” can just create a plug-in
that extends the Basic content. The natural reading of the EPL is that
this would incur no obligation to the community. It’s like putting
Jakarta Collections in your proprietary Java app.
However, I think its incumbent upon us as
content authors to make voluntary contribution as attractive as possible while
still enforcing the vision of OpenUP/Basic as a minimalist, executable process.
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ricardo Balduino
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007
To: Eclipse Process Framework
Project Developers List
Subject: RE: [epf-dev] Clarity on
On top of what Nate described, I'd add that if a
company uses (copy and paste) snippets of OpenUP to build a process and
commercialize it, they would need to make that process available under EPL.
Senior Software Engineer
IBM Rational (www.ibm.com/rational)
EPF Committer (www.eclipse.org/epf)
02/01/2007 09:36 AM
Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
"Eclipse Process Framework Project
Developers List" <epf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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
Modify the OpenUP/Basic “Create Test Cases” task
in their own environment = required to share with EPF
epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:epf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Lyons
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 9:33 AM
To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List
Subject: [epf-dev] Clarity on EPL
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.
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>?”
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?
epf-dev mailing list