Igor Jacy Lino Campista [http://community.jboss.org/people/icampista] created the discussion
"Re: JBoss Tools license question" To view the discussion, visit: http://community.jboss.org/message/568171#568171 -------------------------------------------------------------- That's a very interesting question.I also found it confusing. For a minimal set of JSF developerment, I think you install the 2 following features * org.jboss.tools.xulrunner.feature.feature.group (MPL) * org.jboss.tools.richfaces.feature.feature.group Looking at the internet and also the mentioned bundle/feature (looking at specifically at *org.jboss.tools.richfaces.feature* ): * wikipedia, you think that its GPL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBoss_Tools http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JBoss_Tools * eclipse marketplace, you don't know (says "Other Open Source"). http://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/jboss-tools-1 http://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/jboss-tools-1 * Bundle's *feature.xml* ( + *feature.properties* ), where it says** +copyright=Copyright (c) 2007 Exadel, Inc and Red Hat, Inc.\n\ Distributed under license by Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved.\n\ This program is made available under the terms of the\n\ Eclipse Public License v1.0 which accompanies this distribution,\n\ and is available at http\://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html\n\ Contributors\:\n\ Exadel, Inc. and Red Hat, Inc. - initial API and implementation+ * Bundle's other files like *license.html*, where it mentions EPL, LGPL and/or other open sources licenses. Where it says:** +Red Hat, Inc. licenses these features and plugins to you under certain open source licenses (or aggregations of such licenses), which in a particular case may include the Eclipse Public License, the GNU Lesser General Public License, and/or certain other open source licenses. For precise licensing details, consult the corresponding source code, or contact Red Hat Legal Affairs, 1801 Varsity Drive, Raleigh NC 27606 USA.+ * At the plugin level there is no specific place in the *MANIFEST*, but often developers put a *license.txt* or an *about.html.* Where it says:** *About This Content* ©2007 Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved *License * Red Hat Inc., through its JBoss division, makes available all content in this plug-in ("Content"). Unless otherwise indicated below, the Content is provided to you under the terms and conditions of the Eclipse Public License Version 1.0 ("EPL"). A copy of the EPL is available at http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.php http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.php. For purposes of the EPL, "Program" will mean the Content. If you did not receive this Content directly from Red Hat Inc., the Content is being redistributed by another party ("Redistributor") and different terms and conditions may apply to your use of any object code in the Content. Check the Redistributor's license that was provided with the Content. If no such license exists, contact the Redistributor. Unless otherwise indicated below, the terms and conditions of the EPL still apply to any source code in the Content and such source code may be obtained at http://www.jboss.org/tools http://www.jboss.org/tools. After this short analysis of the *org.jboss.tools.richfaces.feature.feature.group* bundle, I think the bundle's license is just misleading and should only mention EPL which makes sense (as all its plugins are EPL) . The good thing about it is that the EPL suits perfectly good for other reason. Based on an earlier investigation I did about it, I end-up reading in the Free Software Foundation that the GPL license is incompatible with Eclipse if its missing a special exception. http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/using-the-gpl-for-eclipse-plug-ins (http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/using-the-gpl-for-eclipse-plug-ins) There is also a blog about it from Mike Milinkovich, the executive director from the Eclipse Foundation at http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/2010/04/06/epl-gpl-commentary/ (http://dev.eclipse.org/blogs/mike/2010/04/06/epl-gpl-commentary/) What is the position of Red Hat on JBoss Tools with the GPL? Does Red Hat has the same view as the FSF ? Do they use GPL (with exception ) license? I understand that if there is an offending code (propietary), it will be redone in a GPL license, or as far as I can assume, in the case of these bundle it would actualy be EPL. Is that right? Cheers, Igor -------------------------------------------------------------- Reply to this message by going to Community [http://community.jboss.org/message/568171#568171] Start a new discussion in JBoss Tools at Community [http://community.jboss.org/choose-container!input.jspa?contentType=1&containerType=14&container=2128]
_______________________________________________ jboss-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-user
