Wayne,
Is this simple global search-and-replace approach indeed
sufficient? I.e, the "PDX-License-Identifier: EPL-2.0"
information in any header notice is optional? I'd be very happy
with that!! Is the resulting about.html from such a
search-and-replace the correct one (sufficiently correct) for EPL
2.0? E.g., does does it matter that the <p>June 5,
2007</p> will be outdated in the about.html? Of course that
would be easy to globally search-and-replace as well.
Perhaps some specific guidance along the lines of what Ed has
suggested, outlining what need minimally be done (and can easily be
done) to conform to EPL 2.0's requirements, would be very helpful in
some wiki page referenced by the FAQ. I'd like to be a good citizen
and do my part in the migration...
Regards,
Ed
On 25.06.2018 17:59, Ed Willink wrote:
Hi
Ed
I have migrated OCL, QVTd and QVTo.
I just searched and replaced "Eclipse Public License v1.0" to
"Eclipse Public License v2.0" and
"http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html" to
"http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v20.html" in ALL files, since I
figure that these strings are sufficiently long that the change
can be done without more than a sampled review (e.g. in a
*.genmodel copyright element).
In a discussion on the OCL Review, Wayne was happy that a simple
blast was adequate recognizing that the increased skill and care
to correctly comment/indent the additional EPL DX line was not
justified. Wayne was also happy to leave the obsolete "All rights
reserved." and "which accompanies this distribution" text
unchanged.
Even though the license change does not really merit a version
change API-wise, I decided to apply a minor increment anyway. It
required some API filtering to placate.
NB. Use a very recent version of EGIT to make sure you don't need
a coffee break while committing 5000 changes.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 25/06/2018 17:43, Ed Merks wrote:
Hi,
I wonder if anyone started seriously looking at migrating their
project from EPL 1.0 to EPL 2.0?
The FAQ says we should:
https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.60mjudroo8e5
Also, Wayne suggested that there will be pressure applied, e.g.,
perhaps a release train participation requirement.
But the FAQ doesn't say much about how to do this:
https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.tci84nlsqpgw
The instructions are "So, a project can use the new version by
simply updating the file headers and notices." But how simple
is that really? Just changing all the copyright headers in all
the files sounds simple at face value.
https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.q72cnghf29k0
But I have several thousand files!
Is everyone doing this or planning to do this manually, or via
various forms of scripts that we each author ourselves? Of
course we'll all diligently increment every bundle and feature
version (by the appropriate amount) remembering to keep the POMs
in sync. And we won't overlook the copyright element in each
feature. Nor will we overwrite each about.html with the new
one (where is the definitive version of that anyway?),
accidentally replacing any Third Party Content sections. To me
it seems like a lot of work, made error prone by the sheer
tedium involved.
Perhaps someone else already has some experience to share?
Regards,
Ed
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
|