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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 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
_______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
