Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | [licensing] Andmore licensing needs board approval | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Community | Reporter: | Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton> | ||||||||
| Component: | Proposals and Reviews | Assignee: | Eclipse Management Organization <emo> | ||||||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | d_a_carver, ericc, mike.milinkovich | ||||||||
| Version: | unspecified | ||||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||||||
| OS: | All | ||||||||||
| URL: | https://projects.eclipse.org/proposals/proteus-android-tooling | ||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||||
| Bug Depends on: | |||||||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 443600 | ||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
|
Description
Wayne Beaton
Dave, I don't have any information beyond what Wayne has outlined here as far as the licensing status goes. My contribution of the MOTODEV code to AOSP was all Apache v2. I'm not an expert on what happens to it when it churns through here. At some point I would hope the com.google.android.* namespaces would become org.eclipse.proteus.* but there needs to be a migration path there as part of the project plan. I would hope we would have time to plan for that though. (In reply to Eric Cloninger from comment #1) > Dave, I don't have any information beyond what Wayne has outlined here as > far as the licensing status goes. My contribution of the MOTODEV code to > AOSP was all Apache v2. I'm not an expert on what happens to it when it > churns through here. > > At some point I would hope the com.google.android.* namespaces would become > org.eclipse.proteus.* but there needs to be a migration path there as part > of the project plan. I would hope we would have time to plan for that though. Yeah. I think we can change the com.google.android package names, as long as we reference and keep the original code. That again though is something for legal to put clarity around. As for a migration path, I think it would be good, but not sure if we can ever really have both plugins included in the same project. It is something that we need to look at though and at least document for people. The com.google.android plugins are all EPL licensed though, so it is only the MotoDev plugins that are under an Apache License. Is there a template I can use to take a stab at the presentation? I can take a stab at creating it tonight. To get approval, we need to make a short presentation [1] (3-4 slides) to the Board that discusses the following: - why the project needs to be dual licensed. - what licenses are you requesting. Attach the presentation to this bug. I would suggest adding a final slide that makes it clear what is the decision being asked of the Board. For reference, take a look at the following projects who made dual licensing presentations: + bug 433307 + bug 442481 [1] https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Starting_A_New_Project#Licensing Thanks. Will try and get this done tonight and attach the presentation here. (In reply to David Carver from comment #5) > Thanks. Will try and get this done tonight and attach the presentation here. Four pages (including the intro slide) is the sweet spot. Wayne is EDL a possibilty with the project. Seems like it would cover both EPL and Apache v2 licenses under one distribution license? Created attachment 247093 [details]
Proteus Dual Licensing Request
Attached first draft of dual licensing request.
Comment on attachment 247093 [details]
Proteus Dual Licensing Request
Have downloaded and correct minor spelling errors, will upload corrected presentation with identical name.
Created attachment 247118 [details]
Proteus Dual Licensing Request
Only spelling corrects. No content changes.
Hi David, Overall, presentation looks good. @Wayne Can you comment on this. The Android SDK is under a combination of ALv2 and EPL. [wayne@river sdk]$ find . -name MODULE_LICE* ./eclipse/plugins/com.android.ide.eclipse.ndk/MODULE_LICENSE_EPL ./eclipse/plugins/com.android.ide.eclipse.adt.overlay/MODULE_LICENSE_EPL ./eclipse/plugins/com.android.ide.eclipse.hierarchyviewer/MODULE_LICENSE_APACHE2 ./eclipse/plugins/com.android.ide.eclipse.tests/MODULE_LICENSE_EPL ./eclipse/plugins/com.android.ide.eclipse.adt/MODULE_LICENSE_EPL ./eclipse/plugins/com.android.ide.eclipse.ddms/MODULE_LICENSE_APACHE2 ./bash_completion/MODULE_LICENSE_APACHE2 ./emulator/mksdcard/MODULE_LICENSE_BSD ./hierarchyviewer/MODULE_LICENSE_APACHE I've made this change, along with a few minor structural, and grammar changes. I'll upload the changes shortly. Created attachment 247130 [details]
Presentation with some updates
I ended up making bigger changes that I had originally planned.
Strictly speaking, the project will not be "dual licensed". The project will be EPL-licensed, but some code will have alternatively licenses. AFAICT, no single file in the code base will be licensed both EPL and ALv2 concurrently.
I've changed "dual licensing" to "special licensing".
Due to LibreOffice awesomeness, I couldn't get my changes to match the style of the rest of the presentation (I couldn't get the text colour right). So I simplified the presentation.
(In reply to David Carver from comment #7) > Wayne is EDL a possibilty with the project. Seems like it would cover both > EPL and Apache v2 licenses under one distribution license? I don't think the EDL makes sense for this project. And I definitely do not understand what you mean by "...it would cover both EPL and Apache v2 licenses...". Could you explain what you mean by that? (In reply to Mike Milinkovich from comment #14) > (In reply to David Carver from comment #7) > > Wayne is EDL a possibilty with the project. Seems like it would cover both > > EPL and Apache v2 licenses under one distribution license? > > I don't think the EDL makes sense for this project. And I definitely do not > understand what you mean by "...it would cover both EPL and Apache v2 > licenses...". Could you explain what you mean by that? We can remove EDL. It isn't necessary, and I had a mis-understanding of it's intent. (In reply to David Carver from comment #15) > We can remove EDL. It isn't necessary, and I had a mis-understanding of > it's intent. Already done ;-) How do we feel about the presentation in its current form? Complete? Are changes required? (In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #17) > How do we feel about the presentation in its current form? Complete? Are > changes required? Seems alright to me. (In reply to David Carver from comment #18) > (In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #17) > > How do we feel about the presentation in its current form? Complete? Are > > changes required? > > Seems alright to me. Mike, can you take this to the board for approval, please? The licensing scheme has been approved by the board. |