You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Thorsten Scherler <th...@juntadeandalucia.es> on 2004/07/29 12:09:20 UTC
Eclipse plugin roadmap
Hello group, hello Ross,
I am keen to try out the eclipse plugin from Ross!
Is there a timeframe when we will have it in the scratchpath?
King regards
thorsten
Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap
Posted by Thorsten Scherler <th...@juntadeandalucia.es>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:
>
>> I am keen to try out the eclipse plugin from Ross!
>>
>> Is there a timeframe when we will have it in the scratchpath?
>
>
> I just need to test it after the recent changes (I've removed all
> author tags, renamed the package structure and added the Apache
> license). I should get a half an our this afternoon (GMT) to commit.
>
> Ross
>
>
Nice, dude!
You just found a beta tester ;-). Will try it out this night.
cheers
thorsten
Re: CPL license and Apache (was Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap)
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> OK, I do have some code affected by this, but it doesn't
> need to be in 0.6, I'll find my answers at licensing.
I meant that we could go to licensing@ as a last resort.
We should try to deal with management issues here.
When the time comes, tell us the situation and we can take
it forward if need be.
> However, this still doesn't satisfy your concerns about
> SVN History.
Our PMC needs to ask infrastructure@ to remove the old ones.
--
David Crossley
Re: CPL license and Apache (was Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> The easiest solution is just to side-step the whole issue
> and make our own little icons, no matter how bad they are.
> Someone else will later create original and better ones.
Already done and committed, but as you point out there may be impact on
SVN history.
> We do need to understand the CPL in case there is ever
> something that we really do need to use. I would wait until
> we have a major situation, because then we can look for help
> from the licensing at apache dot org mail list. Also there
> will be soon more clear assistance from the ASF about
> compatible licenses.
>
> That is my advice for the current situation, but if people
> really want to do so, then we can explore further, though
> i would prefer to concentrate on our impending release.
OK, I do have some code affected by this, but it doesn't need to be in
0.6, I'll find my answers at licensing. However, this still doesn't
satisfy your concerns about SVN History.
Ross
Re: CPL license and Apache (was Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap)
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> >> Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>> I've removed the items now anyway. Thanks for the heads up.
> >>
> >> However they are still in the SVN history.
> >>
> >> Nicola Ken, do you know if we need to go in the back
> >> door and completely remove such things?
> >
> > It must be done by infrastructure, and they have to keep history in
> > place anyway. BTW, I haven't checked if the license is *really*
> > incompatible.
>
> I just read the license again. Not really got time to look into it
> more right now, but it is still my understanding that it is compatible -
> but I am not a lawyer and my word cannot be final. Full text of license
> is at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php, but perhaps more
> important is the following FAQ entry (from
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html)
>
> "If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL and
> distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
> Program, must I make the source code to my module available in
> accordance with the terms of the CPL?
>
> No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program. "
>
> This is about using a module within a CPL licensed programme rather than
> a CPL module in another product, but I think it still applies.
>
> The other FAQ entry that was referred to previously in this thread was:
>
> "Does the CPL allow me to take the Source Code for a Program licensed
> under it and include all or part of it in another program licensed under
> the GNU General Public License (GPL), Berkeley Software Distribution
> (BSD) license or other Open Source license?
>
> No. Only the owner of software can decide whether and how to license it
> to others. Contributors to a Program licensed under the CPL understand
> that source code for the Program will be made available under the terms
> of the CPL. Unless you are the owner of the software or have received
> permission from the owner, you are not authorized to apply the terms of
> another license to the Program by including it in a program licensed
> under another Open Source license. By the way, the same answer applies
> if you want to include source code licensed under another Open Source
> license in a program licensed under the CPL. "
>
> This clearly states that we canot relicense, but I do not see that it
> precludes credited inclusion, furthermore we are not talking about
> software source code here. This is a couple of graphics images, which
> are treated as compiled code I beleive.
The easiest solution is just to side-step the whole issue
and make our own little icons, no matter how bad they are.
Someone else will later create original and better ones.
We do need to understand the CPL in case there is ever
something that we really do need to use. I would wait until
we have a major situation, because then we can look for help
from the licensing at apache dot org mail list. Also there
will be soon more clear assistance from the ASF about
compatible licenses.
That is my advice for the current situation, but if people
really want to do so, then we can explore further, though
i would prefer to concentrate on our impending release.
--
David Crossley
CPL license and Apache (was Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>
>> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> I've removed the items now anyway. Thanks for the heads up.
>>
>>
>> However they are still in the SVN history.
>>
>> Nicola Ken, do you know if we need to go in the back
>> door and completely remove such things?
>
>
> It must be done by infrastructure, and they have to keep history in
> place anyway. BTW, I haven't checked if the license is *really*
> incompatible.
>
I just read the license again. Not really got time to look into it
moreright now, but it is still my understanding that it is compatible -
but I am not a lawyer and my word cannot be final. Full text of license
is at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cpl.php, but perhaps more
important is the following FAQ entry (from
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html)
"If I write a module to add to a Program licensed under the CPL and
distribute the object code of the module along with the rest of the
Program, must I make the source code to my module available in
accordance with the terms of the CPL?
No, as long as the module is not a derivative work of the Program. "
This is about using a module within a CPL licensed programme rather than
a CPL module in another product, but I think it still applies.
The other FAQ entry that was referred to previously in this thread was:
"Does the CPL allow me to take the Source Code for a Program licensed
under it and include all or part of it in another program licensed under
the GNU General Public License (GPL), Berkeley Software Distribution
(BSD) license or other Open Source license?
No. Only the owner of software can decide whether and how to license it
to others. Contributors to a Program licensed under the CPL understand
that source code for the Program will be made available under the terms
of the CPL. Unless you are the owner of the software or have received
permission from the owner, you are not authorized to apply the terms of
another license to the Program by including it in a program licensed
under another Open Source license. By the way, the same answer applies
if you want to include source code licensed under another Open Source
license in a program licensed under the CPL. "
This clearly states that we canot relicense, but I do not see that it
precludes credited inclusion, furthermore we are not talking about
software source code here. This is a couple of graphics images, which
are treated as compiled code I beleive.
Ross
Re: please completely remove some items from Forrest SVN
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Here is the answer from infrastructure. So in the future
people must be even more careful about commit.
--David
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>
> > There are some unlicensed icons committed by accident
> > to our SVN repository:
> > forrest/trunk/scratchpad/eclipsePlugin/icons/
> > build.png reload.png sample.gif start.png stop.png
> >
> > We have subsequently deleted them and replaced the last two
> > with new creations.
> >
> > Would someone please completely remove the five original items.
> > We can then add the two new icons again.
>
> There's no 'svn obliterate' feature. Once you add it, it's there. IF we
> really had to, we could do a dump load cycle with svndumpfilter, but I
> don't think it's worth it. If someone served us with a C&D, we would
> manually obliterate it with a dump/load. *shrug* -- justin
Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
...
>>I've removed the items now anyway. Thanks for the heads up.
>
> However they are still in the SVN history.
>
> Nicola Ken, do you know if we need to go in the back
> door and completely remove such things?
It must be done by infrastructure, and they have to keep history in
place anyway. BTW, I haven't checked if the license is *really*
incompatible.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> Dave Brondsema wrote:
> > Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>
> >>Blast! I forgot that one. They are derived from CPL licensed images in
> >>the eclipse project. This is a compatible license (as far as I
> >>understand it), but they should be licensed as such.
> >>
> >>However, I'll knock together another couple of logo's now and put them
> >>in instead.
> >>
> >>Thanks for spotting this.
That is why we are a team. We can all keep an eye on things.
> > See #12 at http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
> >
> > I think that means, unfortunately, we cannot incorporate anything from the
> > CPL into our project.
>
> Oh, OK.
>
> I've removed the items now anyway. Thanks for the heads up.
However they are still in the SVN history.
Nicola Ken, do you know if we need to go in the back
door and completely remove such things?
--
David Crossley
Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Dave Brondsema wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>
>>David Crossley wrote:
>>
>>>Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I just need to test it after the recent changes (I've removed all author
>>>>tags, renamed the package structure and added the Apache license). I
>>>>should get a half an our this afternoon (GMT) to commit.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks. However, i did raise one issue that you
>>>did not answer: What is the status of those icons?
>>>Who owns them? If we cannot say that they belong
>>>to us or come from some un-encumbered source, then
>>>they must not be committed to our repository.
>>
>>Blast! I forgot that one. They are derived from CPL licensed images in
>>the eclipse project. This is a compatible license (as far as I
>>understand it), but they should be licensed as such.
>>
>>However, I'll knock together another couple of logo's now and put them
>>in instead.
>>
>>Thanks for spotting this.
>>
>>Ross
>>
>
>
> See #12 at http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
>
> I think that means, unfortunately, we cannot incorporate anything from the
> CPL into our project.
Oh, OK.
I've removed the items now anyway. Thanks for the heads up.
> Also, you should add the Apache license to build.properties and plugin.xml
> also.
OK - done.
Ross
Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap
Posted by Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net>.
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Ross Gardler wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> >>I just need to test it after the recent changes (I've removed all author
> >>tags, renamed the package structure and added the Apache license). I
> >>should get a half an our this afternoon (GMT) to commit.
> >
> >
> > Thanks. However, i did raise one issue that you
> > did not answer: What is the status of those icons?
> > Who owns them? If we cannot say that they belong
> > to us or come from some un-encumbered source, then
> > they must not be committed to our repository.
>
> Blast! I forgot that one. They are derived from CPL licensed images in
> the eclipse project. This is a compatible license (as far as I
> understand it), but they should be licensed as such.
>
> However, I'll knock together another couple of logo's now and put them
> in instead.
>
> Thanks for spotting this.
>
> Ross
>
See #12 at http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-cplfaq.html
I think that means, unfortunately, we cannot incorporate anything from the
CPL into our project.
Also, you should add the Apache license to build.properties and plugin.xml
also.
--
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
http://www.splike.com : programming
http://csx.calvin.edu : student org
Re: Do'nt License Samples was: Eclipse plugin roadmap
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Nick Chalko wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>>
>> Blast! I forgot that one. They are derived from CPL licensed images in
>> the eclipse project. This is a compatible license (as far as I
>> understand it), but they should be licensed as such.
>>
>> However, I'll knock together another couple of logo's now and put them
>> in instead.
>>
>> Thanks for spotting this.
>>
>> Ross
>>
> I think this highlights the reason to NOT license samples designed to be
> copied and by third parties, in the use of a product.
> For us that means that even thought Forrest is ASL 2, all the files
> generated by "forrest site" should not be licensed, and should be
> marked as such.
+1
> Hmm actually, come to think of it. When you use the "PDE wizard in
> eclipse, it creates a bunch of files, including the sample.gif." and
> none of the generated files have a license notice. I think it is
> reasonable that the sample.gif is also not licensed.
This impacts on some other work I have. I'll check it out and report back.
Ross
Re: Don't License Samples
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Dave Brondsema wrote:
> ...
> > Perhaps we could say that the seed site is a form of
> > documentation and therefore we don't need it?
>
> Documentation is "licensed" too.
>
> But IMO a site seed is a creation of Forrest, and we do not license
> those. For example, if i make a site with Forrest, that site is not
> licensed by ASF! If I compile code with GCC, my program is not GPL!
So then the process of doing the 'forrest seed' would
need to strip the license from the source files, as it
copies them across.
--
David Crossley
Re: Don't License Samples
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Dave Brondsema wrote:
...
> Perhaps we could say that the seed site is a form of
> documentation and therefore we don't need it?
Documentation is "licensed" too.
But IMO a site seed is a creation of Forrest, and we do not license
those. For example, if i make a site with Forrest, that site is not
licensed by ASF! If I compile code with GCC, my program is not GPL!
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Don't License Samples
Posted by Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net>.
Nick Chalko wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>
>> Nick Chalko wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think this highlights the reason to NOT license samples designed to
>>> be copied and by third parties, in the use of a product.
>>> For us that means that even thought Forrest is ASL 2, all the files
>>> generated by "forrest site" should not be licensed, and should be
>>> marked as such.
>>>
>>
>>
>> No, the Apache License is enabling. It does not restrict your use.
>> Its intention is to let you use the work as is and to build upon
>> it with your own work.
>>
>> What part of the License do you have trouble with.
>>
>> We cannot distribute our work unlicensed.
>>
>>
>>
> So walking though an example
> I am creating a new project.
> I do a "forrest seed"
> It generates for example src/documentation/content./xdocs/index.xml
>
> If index.xml contains the ASL2 (which it does) then I must leave it
> licensed that way. Perhaps I am writing documentation that I don't
> want to be very restrictive of. (Think company confidential)
>
> It seems to me that the ASL2 does not allow me to distribute DERIVATIVES
> without having the DERIVATIVE also ASL2 covered.
>
> The license reads in part
>
> / You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and
> may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for
> use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any
> such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction,
> and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions
> stated in this License.
> /
>
> This implies to me that I have to let others modify and distribute the
> documentation I produce that is covered by the ASL2. This is not
> appropriate for some of the documentation work I do.
>
> Seems to me that "forrest seed" should produce files that says
> something like
>
> /This file is generated with any warranties. do what ever you want
> with, including removing this notice./
>
>
> R,
> Nick
>
Well the ASF mandates that all source files need to have the license
header. Perhaps we could say that the seed site is a form of
documentation and therefore we don't need it?
--
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.splike.com : programming
http://csx.calvin.edu : student org
http://www.brondsema.net : personal
Re: Don't License Samples
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Nick Chalko wrote:
> >We cannot distribute our work unlicensed.
This is -non- negotiable; every bit and byte in a tarball downloaded from
apache comes under the ASL2 or, if the ASF got it from a third party, that
parties license.
> If index.xml contains the ASL2 (which it does) then I must leave it
> licensed that way. Perhaps I am writing documentation that I don't
> want to be very restrictive of. (Think company confidential)
Please read the license carefully or work with a lawyer familiar with
your field; there are no (known) isuses with this. Lots of companies ship
proprietary modified versions of apache code (though they cannot claim
that it is the official apache code of course) in a confidental fashion.
Dw
Re: Don't License Samples
Posted by Nick Chalko <ni...@chalko.com>.
David Crossley wrote:
>Nick Chalko wrote:
>
>
>>I think this highlights the reason to NOT license samples designed to be
>>copied and by third parties, in the use of a product.
>>For us that means that even thought Forrest is ASL 2, all the files
>>generated by "forrest site" should not be licensed, and should be
>>marked as such.
>>
>>
>
>No, the Apache License is enabling. It does not restrict your use.
>Its intention is to let you use the work as is and to build upon
>it with your own work.
>
>What part of the License do you have trouble with.
>
>We cannot distribute our work unlicensed.
>
>
>
So walking though an example
I am creating a new project.
I do a "forrest seed"
It generates for example src/documentation/content./xdocs/index.xml
If index.xml contains the ASL2 (which it does) then I must leave it
licensed that way. Perhaps I am writing documentation that I don't
want to be very restrictive of. (Think company confidential)
It seems to me that the ASL2 does not allow me to distribute DERIVATIVES
without having the DERIVATIVE also ASL2 covered.
The license reads in part
/ You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and
may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for
use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any
such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction,
and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions
stated in this License.
/
This implies to me that I have to let others modify and distribute the
documentation I produce that is covered by the ASL2.
This is not appropriate for some of the documentation work I do.
Seems to me that "forrest seed" should produce files that says
something like
/This file is generated with any warranties. do what ever you want
with, including removing this notice./
R,
Nick
Re: Do'nt License Samples
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Nick Chalko wrote:
> I think this highlights the reason to NOT license samples designed to be
> copied and by third parties, in the use of a product.
> For us that means that even thought Forrest is ASL 2, all the files
> generated by "forrest site" should not be licensed, and should be
> marked as such.
No, the Apache License is enabling. It does not restrict your use.
Its intention is to let you use the work as is and to build upon
it with your own work.
What part of the License do you have trouble with.
We cannot distribute our work unlicensed.
--
David Crossley
Do'nt License Samples was: Eclipse plugin roadmap
Posted by Nick Chalko <ni...@chalko.com>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Blast! I forgot that one. They are derived from CPL licensed images in
> the eclipse project. This is a compatible license (as far as I
> understand it), but they should be licensed as such.
>
> However, I'll knock together another couple of logo's now and put them
> in instead.
>
> Thanks for spotting this.
>
> Ross
>
I think this highlights the reason to NOT license samples designed to be
copied and by third parties, in the use of a product.
For us that means that even thought Forrest is ASL 2, all the files
generated by "forrest site" should not be licensed, and should be
marked as such.
If IBM had done the same thing for there "sample.gif" then we would not
have to waste are time with this.
Hmm actually, come to think of it. When you use the "PDE wizard in
eclipse, it creates a bunch of files, including the sample.gif." and
none of the generated files have a license notice.
I think it is reasonable that the sample.gif is also not licensed.
R,
Nick
Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>>I just need to test it after the recent changes (I've removed all author
>>tags, renamed the package structure and added the Apache license). I
>>should get a half an our this afternoon (GMT) to commit.
>
>
> Thanks. However, i did raise one issue that you
> did not answer: What is the status of those icons?
> Who owns them? If we cannot say that they belong
> to us or come from some un-encumbered source, then
> they must not be committed to our repository.
Blast! I forgot that one. They are derived from CPL licensed images in
the eclipse project. This is a compatible license (as far as I
understand it), but they should be licensed as such.
However, I'll knock together another couple of logo's now and put them
in instead.
Thanks for spotting this.
Ross
Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Ross Gardler wrote:
> I just need to test it after the recent changes (I've removed all author
> tags, renamed the package structure and added the Apache license). I
> should get a half an our this afternoon (GMT) to commit.
Thanks. However, i did raise one issue that you
did not answer: What is the status of those icons?
Who owns them? If we cannot say that they belong
to us or come from some un-encumbered source, then
they must not be committed to our repository.
--
David Crossley
Re: Eclipse plugin roadmap
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> I am keen to try out the eclipse plugin from Ross!
>
> Is there a timeframe when we will have it in the scratchpath?
I just need to test it after the recent changes (I've removed all author
tags, renamed the package structure and added the Apache license). I
should get a half an our this afternoon (GMT) to commit.
Ross