Community
Participate
Working Groups
For relicensing the RCP Mail 2.0 example project under EPL/EDL (see bug 253105) we also need to ask all the authors of the original RCP Mail template code. Unfortunately, the history of :pserver:anonymous@dev.eclipse.org:/cvsroot/eclipse pde/ui/org.eclipse.pde.ui.templates only shows that the code was moved to this place by Wassim Melhem (see bug 153642) and was unchanged since then. Who wrote the original code? Is the version history with author information still available somewhere?
Why do you need this information? Do you need their consent?
Yes, all the authors of RCP Mail 2.0 and the original RCP Mail template need to agree to dually re-license their contributions under the EPL and the EDL.
Hmm, http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/org.eclipse.pde.ui/templates_3.0/mail/java/?hideattic=0 says that the entire thing was checked in by Wassim Melhem in 2005, plus one check-in from cwong. Unfortunately no copyright headers or bugzilla numbers so far.
Mailed Wassim asking for confirmation of authorship.
Answer from Wassim: -- Hi Ralf, The code was initially contributed by Jean-Michel Lemieux. It was cleaned up a bit by me. Then for 3.1, the code was refactored and updated by Nick Edgar. I don't think we made modifications after that. As for me, I am fine with you redistributing the code. Wassim
(In reply to comment #5) > Answer from Wassim: > -- > Hi Ralf, > > The code was initially contributed by Jean-Michel Lemieux. JM, is this correct?
Once upon a time I was the original author and contributed it to PDE as an example. It's lived happily ever after.
Obviously I am not a lawyer but I think since the copyright for code written by IBM employees is with IBM and not the individuals, there should not be any problem with relicensing it. To be on the safe side, we can ask the individuals, too. JM, Nick, would you agree with relicensing the RCP Mail example under a dual license (EPL and EDL)? The EDL is a BSD-style license and would allow people to take the example code, build on it, and not have to contribute the result back to Eclipse. This would be in line with the Eclipse Foundation's recommendations for example code.
Does anybody know who "cwong" is?
See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=82048#c5
comment 8 is correct, if IBM is ok, then so be it. I can't see how there is any business value in this little example. For what it's forth, you have my +1 on any licensing you want to use.
No need to identify the authors anymore
