Hi Ed
I think I made a similar point in
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=535236#c8
But since I upset numerous people over PB-CQs last year I just kept
quiet this year. The OCL dependencies are highly misleading.
Regards
Ed Willink
On 26/06/2018 08:19, Ed Merks wrote:
Ed,
Note that in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=535225#c6
I've expressed concerns about the contents of the NOTICE file, I.e.,
if you look at the CONTRIBUTING file suggested for Oomph:
https://www.eclipse.org/projects/tools/documentation.php?id=tools.oomph
It lists Oomph dependencies as third party content:
## Third-party Content
This project leverages the following third party content.
Perhaps I'm being overly picky, but it seems to me that the NOTICE
should refer to "content" as actual physically contained content of
the repository. And while it might be fine (and useful to someone) to
list dependencies, they should be spelled out as dependencies not as
content. Furthermore, Oomph's actual dependency for a specific
library is specified as:
org.apache.httpcomponents.httpclient;bundle-version="[4.0.0,5.0.0)",
So the information about one specific version of that library in the
NOTICE file seems somewhat misleading:
Apache HttpComponents Client (4.2.6)
* License: Apache License, 2.0
This is just one of many versions of that library that will satisfy
the actual dependency. And it is most definitely not part of the repo
content.
Regards,
Ed
On 25.06.2018 18:08, Ed Willink wrote:
Hi
Sorry. Forgot two details.
Before you start, send an email to the EMO notifying that you 'have'
changed. They will then update the EF database and consequently the
PMI so that the new Legal Document Generator at e.g
https://www.eclipse.org/projects/tools/documentation.php?id=modeling.mdt.ocl
provides prototype EPL 2.0 text for NOTICE and CONTRIBUTING at the
root of your repo. LICENSE comes from epl_20.html
Regards
Ed Willink
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
[email protected]
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or
unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
[email protected]
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
[email protected]
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
