> > On another topic ... I like the new comment headers you are
> doing for
> > the license. I just wanted to point out that none of the
> files have
> > an @author tag as the comment references.
> > Should we just change the wording to refer to the repository for
> > author information?
>
> Regarding the license, I was aware of it and I planned to put
> the @author tag there.
> Unfortunatelly it seems I did not. Sorry Cedric ...
I was checking the license issue yesterday, scanned briefly also some other
open source eclipse plugins.
Most of them are using simillar/same licensing statement as we were using so
far.
Then I re-checked the eclipse.org and I've noticed that eclipse migrated
from CPL 1.0 to EPL 1.0.
Their license header
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/copyrightandlicensenotice.html is more or less
the old one again.
The "new" one I've used in these last classes is probably better suited for
development done by
group of individuals (out of context of their employers) than the "corporate
oriented" elcipse's header.
However, we might face a problem with the new one, since AFAIK that at the
beginnnig the subclipse started
as copy of the cvs plugin so IBM should really be noticed as the initial
contributor.
At least for those copied classes.
So I'm in doubt now.
Probably the most correct license statement would be the one as stated in
EPL 1.0.
We just should append our line to the contributors at the bottom of it.
The question is what to put there ?
Reference to the @author tag, or reference to svn repository, or some page
in tigris.org with list of contributors etc ?
Martin
Received on Fri Sep 30 18:55:38 2005