Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | [license] Alternative licensing approval for Eclipse AsciiDoc | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Community | Reporter: | Maria Teresa Delgado <mariateresa.delgado> |
| Component: | EMO Approvals | Assignee: | Eclipse Management Organization <emo> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | dan, jesse.mcconnell, mike.milinkovich, sarah, sharon.corbett, wayne.beaton |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | PC | ||
| OS: | Mac OS X | ||
| URL: | https://projects.eclipse.org/proposals/eclipse-asciidoc | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Bug Depends on: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 561103 | ||
|
Description
Maria Teresa Delgado
I'm going to remove the Eclipse Foundation Specification License (EFSL) from the proposal. The EFSL is used to license the Final Specification. Project artifacts are, upon ratification by the specification committee, "transmogrified" such that the distribution form of specification document (PDF, HTML) is distributed under the EFSL. It this form of the document that compatible implementations should be created. The project sources must themselves must be under open source licenses (The EFSL is not an open source license). Project lead, is it possible to have this project use the more recent CC-BY 4.0 International version license instead of the 3.0? (In reply to Maria Teresa Delgado from comment #2) > Project lead, is it possible to have this project use the more recent CC-BY > 4.0 International version license instead of the 3.0? Hi Maria, We don't have a problem licensing the user documentation as CC-BY 4.0 International. So yes, we can use it. I'd just selected the same license the initial documentation contribution is licensed under because I didn't know whether Eclipse preferred to keep the original license or not. (In reply to Wayne Beaton from comment #1) > I'm going to remove the Eclipse Foundation Specification License (EFSL) from > the proposal. > > The EFSL is used to license the Final Specification. Project artifacts are, > upon ratification by the specification committee, "transmogrified" such that > the distribution form of specification document (PDF, HTML) is distributed > under the EFSL. It this form of the document that compatible implementations > should be created. > > The project sources must themselves must be under open source licenses (The > EFSL is not an open source license). Thanks for the clarification, Wayne! So that means we need to select a license for the project sources, correct? (The CC BY 3/CC BY 4.0 International is meant for user documentation which is part of the initial contribution and will become the content for the website for writers using the syntax. I wasn't thinking of using it as the license for all of the project sources.) My apologies for the long delay. I misunderstood your intentions. Using CC-BY for documentation is completely supported and is, as you've noted, separate from the "project license". All projects are already approved to use CC-BY for documentation (we don't normally include this as a project license in the proposal). Regarding the project license, my starting point in that you use the EPL-2.0. Are there considerations (e.g., existing content) that makes this difficult or onerous? Are there other licenses that you'd prefer that the project use? > All projects are already approved to use CC-BY for documentation (we don't normally include this as a project license in the proposal) +1 > Regarding the project license, my starting point in that you use the EPL-2.0. Are there considerations (e.g., existing content) that makes this difficult or onerous? Are there other licenses that you'd prefer that the project use? We think the EPL-2.0 will be a good fit, too, so let's move forward with it as the project license. Thanks, Wayne! |