Repos being created with wrong license?

[John D. Ament]

I just noticed that the Health Check repo is up, however its marked with an EPL. Is that an infra thing, or should they be creating our repos with the Apache license?

https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-health/blob/master/LICENSE

John

[Werner Keil]

Sure nothing was forgotten in the Bugzilla ticket?

Werner

[Werner Keil]

The license certainly was not mentioned in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=515731

Guess every project that deviates from the default license should do that....

[Ondrej Mihályi]

I guess Eclipse used a standard template for a new repo.

We should change it to use our agreed standard, it's just a matter of committing these changes:

 - LICENSE file - Apache v2

 - NOTICE file - listing all contributors

 - each file should have a standard header

See the License section in the Wiki: https://wiki.eclipse.org/ContributingGuidelines
See the config repo for an example: https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-config

--Ondrej

Dňa streda, 26. apríla 2017 18:53:31 UTC+2 Werner Keil napísal(-a):

[Emily Jiang]

I submitted a bugzilla for creating microprofile-fault-tolerance repo with the comment to say using Apache v2 license. Let's wait and see whether this is sufficient .

Emily

[Werner Keil]

Ondrey, 

It seems you or whoever created the page https://wiki.eclipse.org/ContributingGuidelines did it on the wrong level of the Eclipse Wiki.

The page is totally specific to MicroProfile, yet its URL makes the impression it was a Contribution Guideline for EVERY Eclipse project.

Shouldn't it be under https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/ContributionGuidelines instead?

Werner

[Heiko Braun]

I did request the repository, but wan't aware that we need to request a specific License. To be honest, I expected an empty repository. 

Can we simply replace that license file, or does it require more ceremony?

[Mark Struberg]

Is the repo already filled and where did the sources came from? And what license did the actual sources use?
The license of the original sources is the binding one.

[Heiko Braun]

When the Support from Eclipse created the repo it contained an EPL. Lust the LICENSE file, nothing more. I am going to replace it with the ASL one.

[Werner Keil]

I suppose there is no derived work here that would already have a license, otherwise these licenses should also be mentioned or an appropriate NOTICE file point to where these came from.

I fixed Ondrej's mishap in the Wiki

https://wiki.eclipse.org/MicroProfile/ContributionGuidelines 

And asked the Webmasters to delete the old empty one on the top level.

[Kevin Sutter]

+1