[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [platform-ant-dev] Eclipse, Ant Editor and Planty (was: Erich on Bug 27540 Run Ant vs. Ant View)
|
Hi Alf,
(I'm just back from two days of Eclipse code "camping" in
Germany - it was fun and we should have invited you <g>)
Regarding licenses and their importance:
Accept a certain license and you have committed
your company to not develop a competitive product in some area.
For this reason we follow the rule that all licenses must be checked.
Using someone's code as a tool is usually simple, but it still needs to
be approved (in fact Jared pointed out that your license got approved).
Using the code inside a product is the most complicated
and having a standard license really helps.
You were reacting to my hint and explained that you are considering
making the code available under CPL in the next 2-3 months. This
is good news but this also means that the Ant editor will not be
available for 2.1. This is not so good news <g> so here is my
last effort. When contributing to Eclipse you will still get the credit
that
you wrote the code. You will get support from Eclipse developers
to improve the plugin. Finally, it is easier to get something into the
platform when involving the component comitters early.
--erich
Alf.Schiefelbein@gebit.
de To: platform-ant-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent by: cc:
platform-ant-dev-admin@ Subject: Re: [platform-ant-dev] Eclipse, Ant Editor and Planty (was: Erich
eclipse.org on Bug 27540 Run Ant vs. Ant View)
12/06/2002 08:18 PM
Please respond to
platform-ant-dev
Thanks Jeff,
I fixed that problem. The license is now better marked and to be found on
the page.
I didn't expect the license making such trouble. I understand that licenses
are important, however being a developer and having to think about what
kind of
business model or license fits you best is not an easy or fun issue.
Especially if you
have to talk that through with other people. Because then you really have
to
understand all that legal stuff with all its hidden clauses and whatsoever.
Besides
this is just some small tool and it is of no use spending more time on the
license
than on the tool.
So, when we were first releasing Planty, I was not able to convince
everybody to
put it under CPL, therefore we just took the pragmatic and fastest way and
wrote
down in our simple words our own license. And that is what we thought of:
License:
You may use and also modify Planty as a plug-in for your Eclipse
development environment. You may not use
Planty to make direct or in-direct money out of it, except you have an
agreement with GEBIT. You may
integrate Planty in open source projects. This requires to mention GEBIT
as the developer and for this point
also an agreement with GEBIT.
Liability:
GEBIT ships Planty "as is". In particular because of waiving of fees, is
any liability for damages excluded.
As I already mentioned, plans are to contribute the code to Eclipse (which
means
CPL) in near future (2-3 months).
We didn't put the code under CPL right away because we do want to stay in
control
of the code until then. Neverthless we certainly do not want to bind
resources on
Planty for ever. So instead of letting the code die in some corner later on
, we would
like to see it developing and living on within Eclipse.
So after this my statements it should be safe for you IMHO to just have a
look at
it. There might be some issues with the dtdparser (GPL) that I am using.
You
should tell me about problems that you see with it.
However, I really would like you to tell me more about why you are so
strict about
not wanting to look at other code. Are there more of legal stuff or even
risks behind,
which I don't see or is it just about not bothering with code that isn't
available
anyway.
Alf
BTW, Bob I was putting your plug-in the latter ;-)
> Alf,
>
> Just so you know, the license.txt link on your site does not work.
Without
> being able to read the license, almost no one on the eclipse team can
even
> download the plugin let alone try it. If the license is at all viral, it
> causes problems. Have you considered making it available under the CPL?
>
> Jeff
_______________________________________________
platform-ant-dev mailing list
platform-ant-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-ant-dev
