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. Nate ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ricardo Balduino Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:02 PM To: Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List Subject: RE: [epf-dev] Clarity on EPL 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. Ricardo Balduino Senior Software Engineer IBM Rational (www.ibm.com/rational) EPF Committer (www.eclipse.org/epf) "Nate Oster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/01/2007 09:36 AM Please respond to Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List <[email protected]> To "Eclipse Process Framework Project Developers List" <[email protected]> cc Subject 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 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
_______________________________________________ epf-dev mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/epf-dev
