[eclipse-theia] Add additional secondary license to Theia Blueprint

The Eclipse Theia project provides a so-called Blueprint (https://github.com/eclipse-theia/theia-blueprint), which is meant to be a template for adopters when building their own tool. Thus it is intended to be copied over to a proprietary product and then adjusted to the respective requirements of the adopters' product.

Currently, this Blueprint has the license EPL2.0 + GNU General Public License with classpath exception. After consulting this with our fellow committers we would like to add MIT as another secondary license to the code in https://github.com/eclipse-theia/theia-blueprint (ie the Blueprint but not Eclipse Theia itself), to avoid any gray area when the code from Blueprint is used and changed.

What is the most efficient process for doing that? Do we need a written consent by everyone who contributed to Blueprint? Is it sufficient if they just add a +1 on a Github issue?

The vast majority of code comes from committers (and their companies) who already agreed in the Dev call that they are happy to consent to this change. There are a few minor one-time contributions from individuals though, which we may have to contact individually (or revert their contribution, I guess). Right?

added EMO IT-prioritylow IT-severitylow labels

added statetodo label

Let's regard the blueprint as "example" code and leverage our existing policy regarding Licenses for Non-Code, Example, and Other Content. MIT isn't on the list, but I'm believe that I only need a +1 from the executive director (I'll initiate that now).

Under this policy, you can just license the "example" content as MIT (only), update the repository metadata accordingly, and be done with it.

What is the most efficient process for doing that? Do we need a written consent by everyone who contributed to Blueprint? Is it sufficient if they just add a +1 on a Github issue?

Yes. Open an issue and get a +1 from a representative of every copyright holder. Remember that individual committers may not necessarily be the copyright holders.

There are a few minor one-time contributions from individuals though, which we may have to contact individually (or revert their contribution, I guess). Right?

Right. Let's see how you do and we can regroup to sort out what to do with the stragglers.

I have all the approvals that I need from our side.

Let me know when you've gotten approval from all of the contributors.

Thank you very much for this helpful feedback! I'll create a ticket to get everyone's approval.

Just one clarification: Does that mean that the example code should be re-licensed to one license (MIT) instead of adding another secondary license? You wrote MIT (only). Or should MIT be added as another secondary license?

Thank you very much @wbeaton!

I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice. I don't think that anything that I've typed below is legal advice, but... just in case.

I'm splitting hairs a bit, but the secondary license notion described by the EPL-2.0 only works with the GPL-2.0-or-later...

“Secondary License” means either the GNU General Public License, Version 2.0, or any later versions of that license, including any exceptions or additional permissions as identified by the initial Contributor.

This is all very weird, since the notion of secondary license appears to an adopter as being exactly the same as dual licensing making the distinction hard to understand. What we would actually do is dual license with the MIT. Does this make your head hurt? It makes mine hurt...

Regardless, I think that it would be far easier for everybody concerned to just change the license of the template content to the MIT. The intention for that content is that adopters should take it, modify it, incorporate it into their own products, and distribute it under the license of their choice (we very specifically want them to be able to do this). For that sort of scenario, a permissive license like the MIT is what we want. In the template scenario, we have no interest in the values provided by the copyleft licenses.

Does this help?

This helps a lot! And yes, my head hurts too after understanding the difference between secondary and dual license according to the EPL2.0.

We'll go with a single MIT licensing model then. Thank you very much for your fast and valuable help!

Hi @wbeaton, We've now received all approvals: https://github.com/eclipse-theia/theia-blueprint/issues/310 Please let me know if there is anything needed. As soon as I have your go-ahead, I'll update the license headers and license file in the repository. Thank you very much!

@wbeaton Now as we have the approval of all original contributors and the go-ahead of the committer team, what are the next steps? Is there something for you to trigger, or should we just change the license file and the copyright headers accordingly? Thank you!

LGTM. No further approvals are required.

Update the license headers accordingly. I recommend that you describe the nature of the licensing in a README or somewhere where adopters can find it.

PR opened: https://github.com/eclipse-theia/theia-blueprint/pull/316 As no additional approval is necessary, we can close this issue. Thanks again for all your help getting this done!

closed