Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | Add epl-2.0 to the website | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Community | Reporter: | Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton> | ||||
| Component: | Website | Assignee: | phoenix.ui <phoenix.ui-inbox> | ||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | chris.guindon, mike.milinkovich, sharon.corbett | ||||
| Version: | unspecified | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| URL: | http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0 | ||||||
| See Also: |
https://git.eclipse.org/r/103410 https://git.eclipse.org/c/www.eclipse.org/org.git/commit/?id=66c5d5598127429919a951cff45c168971030263 https://git.eclipse.org/r/103785 https://git.eclipse.org/c/www.eclipse.org/org.git/commit/?id=e90361e384a77358beec773b59692558277c0d19 |
||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Bug Depends on: | |||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 519789 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Wayne Beaton
Mike, can you please attach the final approved text of the license? I'll post it to the site, but ask you for a review/approval before we link it or otherwise direct attention to it. Created attachment 269918 [details]
EPL-2.0 in various formats
EPL 2.0 in docx, odt, odf, html, and txt formats.
New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/103410 Gerrit change https://git.eclipse.org/r/103410 was merged to [master]. Commit: http://git.eclipse.org/c/www.eclipse.org/org.git/commit/?id=66c5d5598127429919a951cff45c168971030263 I've posted the HTML, TXT, and PDF versions. I decided to create this as a directory, so the URL is: http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0 I've also included a second link from /legal https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/ The page includes links to the three different "raw" versions of the file, as well as pointers to EPL-v1.0. Note that I've included the following license header on the PHP files. /************************************************************************** * Copyright (c) 2017 Eclipse Foundation and others. * * This program and the accompanying materials are made available * under the terms of the Eclipse Public License 2.0 which accompanies * this distribution, and is available at http://eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0 **************************************************************************/ Under what terms do we distribute the license itself? Is the EPL-2.0 distributed under the terms of the EPL-2.0? I'm thinking that we can at least use the HTML and PDF variants as good examples of proper license headers in non-code content. (In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #5) > I've posted the HTML, TXT, and PDF versions. > > I decided to create this as a directory, so the URL is: > > http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0 > > I've also included a second link from /legal > > https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/ > > The page includes links to the three different "raw" versions of the file, > as well as pointers to EPL-v1.0. > > Note that I've included the following license header on the PHP files. > > /************************************************************************** > * Copyright (c) 2017 Eclipse Foundation and others. > * > * This program and the accompanying materials are made available > * under the terms of the Eclipse Public License 2.0 which accompanies > * this distribution, and is available at http://eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0 > **************************************************************************/ > > Under what terms do we distribute the license itself? Is the EPL-2.0 > distributed under the terms of the EPL-2.0? I'm thinking that we can at > least use the HTML and PDF variants as good examples of proper license > headers in non-code content. Wayne, I might be off topic but I would like to update how we format our copyright block in php files. At the very least, I think we can do without the extra * at the start and end of the comment block. Perhaps we do something similar to the Zend framework? https://github.com/zendframework/zend-ldap/blob/master/src/Attribute.php What do you think? (In reply to Christopher Guindon from comment #6) > I might be off topic but I would like to update how we format our copyright > block in php files. Yup. Pretty off-topic :-) > What do you think? The text is what's important. You and your team can decide how to render it. I have no strong opinion. (In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #7) > (In reply to Christopher Guindon from comment #6) > > I might be off topic but I would like to update how we format our copyright > > block in php files. > > Yup. Pretty off-topic :-) You did include the copyright header in this bug and it was pretty hard for me not to cringe :-) > > > What do you think? > > The text is what's important. You and your team can decide how to render it. > I have no strong opinion. I agree that the text is the most important but formatting does help for readability and for looking a bit more professional. You seem to be pretty happy with what we have right now so I will not bootter unless you change your mind! Mike, the content that you've provided includes an "exhibit B" for specifying that secondary licenses are involved. Do I correctly assume that the exhibit B content should not be present in the simple case? I'm thinking that we hack it out of the HTML, TXT, and PDF versions of the document (which project teams will use as the default text in their repositories, etc.) and instead include instructions on the php page [1] for including that exhibit in cases where it is actually needed? [1] http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0 (In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #9) > Mike, the content that you've provided includes an "exhibit B" for > specifying that secondary licenses are involved. Please tell me that's a typo and you mean Exhibit A. > Do I correctly assume that the exhibit B content should not be present in > the simple case? > > I'm thinking that we hack it out of the HTML, TXT, and PDF versions of the > document (which project teams will use as the default text in their > repositories, etc.) and instead include instructions on the php page [1] for > including that exhibit in cases where it is actually needed? > > [1] http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0 We tried to handle that by including the following sentence in Exhibit A: Simply including a copy of this Agreement, including this Exhibit A is not sufficient to license the Source Code under Secondary Licenses. I believe that the intent of the lawyers involved was that this exhibit remain as part of the license in all its forms. If you want to remove it, we will have to refer that request back to the IP Advisory Committee. Wayne,
Looks like the URL for the new license version will be:
https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/index.php
This is a slightly different convention than the current one:
https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.php
(no period in the version number)
Was that on purpose?
Other observations:
* on the EPL 1.0 page the references to the alternate formats (HTML, PDF, text), etc. are on the right nav. You've moved them to the left nav in your version.
* you are missing a link to the EPL 1.0 in PHP format. You've only provided a link to the HTML version. If we only pick one, I would prefer the PHP.
New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/103785 (In reply to Eclipse Genie from comment #12) > New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/103785 I created a patch to fix the formatting of the php version: https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/index.php This patch is available on staging: https://staging.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/index.php user: testuser password: plaintext (In reply to Mike Milinkovich from comment #11) > Looks like the URL for the new license version will be: > https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0/index.php index.php is implied, so this works. https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-2.0 or this: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0 (I prefer the shorter version in /legal > Was that on purpose? Yup. My intent was to make the URL match the (probable) SPDX code for the license. I also wanted to avoid the PHP suffix for aesthetic reasons. > * on the EPL 1.0 page the references to the alternate formats (HTML, PDF, > text), etc. are on the right nav. You've moved them to the left nav in your > version. I was being lazy and leveraging the _projectCommon functionality. This has the effect of automatically including them all on every page in the directory. > * you are missing a link to the EPL 1.0 in PHP format. You've only provided > a link to the HTML version. If we only pick one, I would prefer the PHP. Okay. Gerrit change https://git.eclipse.org/r/103785 was merged to [master]. Commit: http://git.eclipse.org/c/www.eclipse.org/org.git/commit/?id=e90361e384a77358beec773b59692558277c0d19 The EPL-2.0 is now on the website. I declare victory. |