Eclipse Dash issueshttps://gitlab.eclipse.org/groups/eclipse/technology/dash/-/issues2020-11-25T19:36:27Zhttps://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/103Paperwork section FAQ entry regarding employer engagement needs to be updated2020-11-25T19:36:27ZEclipse WebmasterPaperwork section FAQ entry regarding employer engagement needs to be updated## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#532371)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532371)**
## Description
This question needs to be reworked. The employer is responsible for the MCA, but is no...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#532371)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532371)**
## Description
This question needs to be reworked. The employer is responsible for the MCA, but is not directly responsible for completing ICA-related paperwork (i.e. the ECF is no longer required). Instead, the committer is responsible for completing the paperwork themselves with permission from their employer. So the tone should be more like "what if I cannot (for whatever reason) complete the paperwork?"
Should we maybe try to split this question and have one for MCA and one for ICA?
--
What happens if I cannot convince my employer to fill out the paperwork?
The Eclipse Board of Directors has taken a firm position that if you are employed then you must meet one of the scenarios described above. If you cannot convince your employer to fill out the necessary paperwork, then you cannot have write-access to project resources. This is the Board’s position even if you are working on Eclipse projects on your own time. We realize that this prevents some talented and desirable people from being able to commit to the projects but this is our IP risk reduction strategy.
--
### Blocking
* [Bug 530861](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=530861)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/102[FAQ] Why are some committer names links on project proposal pages?2020-11-25T19:36:24ZEclipse Webmaster[FAQ] Why are some committer names links on project proposal pages?## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#532140)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532140)**
## Description
Add an FAQ entry to the "Starting a New Project" section to explain why some committer...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#532140)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532140)**
## Description
Add an FAQ entry to the "Starting a New Project" section to explain why some committers have links and others do not.
--
When the list of committers provided for a new project proposal are rendered, a link to more information for each individual committer will be included when possible. The link will render, for example, when an individual already has a role on another existing Eclipse open source project (e.g. is a committer, project lead, PMC member, etc.). No link indicates that no existing project relationships exist for that individual.
--https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/101Describe policies regarding permissions on Git/Gerrit repositories2020-11-25T19:36:23ZEclipse WebmasterDescribe policies regarding permissions on Git/Gerrit repositories## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#532138)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532138)**
## Description
Let's add our policies regarding how we configure Git repositories to the handbook.
T...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#532138)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532138)**
## Description
Let's add our policies regarding how we configure Git repositories to the handbook.
The board discussed this a few years ago:
https://www.eclipse.org/org///foundation/boardminutes/2012_06_19-20_Minutes.php
Summary:
--
RESOLVED, that the Board directs the EMO to ensure that the history of the Foundation’s source repositories cannot be changed in “main branches”, with flexibility in private branches. Any exceptions would have to be requested by a PMC to the EMO. A “main branch” is defined as any branch from which releases are built. Any exceptions would have to be requested by a PMC to the EMO.
--
Brain dump; I believe that this is the current policy:
* Rewriting history on, or removal of "main branches" is permitted only under extraordinary circumstances;
* Permission to rewrite on "main branches" is granted only for specific manipulation and only for limited periods of time;
* The EMO IP Team may direct a project team to rewrite history to remove problematic intellectual property;
* PMC approval is required for any other rewrite;
* The typical scenario is that we create a specific namespace where anyone on the project team can force push.
** refs/heads/${username}/*
** refs/tags/${username}/*
Denis, does this sound reasonable? Am I missing anything?
See related discussion on [Bug 472541](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=472541) and [Bug 531562](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=531562).https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/100Update recommended format of copyright statements2020-11-25T19:36:21ZEclipse WebmasterUpdate recommended format of copyright statements## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#532042)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532042)**
## Description
The US Copyright Office recommends that copyright holders use copyright notices that i...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#532042)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532042)**
## Description
The US Copyright Office recommends that copyright holders use copyright notices that include the year of first publication of the work. See What is a copyright notice? How do I put a copyright notice on my work? [1].
TL;DR: Only the year of first publication is required. The statement does not need to be updated when changes are made in subsequent years.
[1] https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq-definitions.htmlhttps://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/99[faq] Why doesn't a committer appear on the project's "who" page?2020-11-25T19:36:18ZEclipse Webmaster[faq] Why doesn't a committer appear on the project's "who" page?## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#532041)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532041)**
## Description## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#532041)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532041)**
## Descriptionhttps://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/98[faq] How do I remove the incubation logo2020-11-25T19:36:17ZEclipse Webmaster[faq] How do I remove the incubation logo## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#531935)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=531935)**
## Description
Add an FAQ entry to describe how to have the incubation logo removed from a project's ...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#531935)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=531935)**
## Description
Add an FAQ entry to describe how to have the incubation logo removed from a project's PMI page.
Perhaps something like:
--
The incubation logo reflects the phase of the project; it is displayed when the project is in the incubation phase as defined by the Eclipse Development Process. Following a successful Graduation Review, EMO staff will update the phase of the project from Incubation to Mature, which will remove all automatically-provided incubation branding. If the project has graduated but still shows the incubation logo, then contact emo@eclipse.org to correct the obvious oversight.
--
As part of this, it might be valuable to pull out the incubation branding requirements (they're already in the document, but should probably be organized into a separate section with a linkable title).https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/97Remove the ECF references from the Committer Paperwork section2020-11-25T19:36:15ZEclipse WebmasterRemove the ECF references from the Committer Paperwork section## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#530863)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=530863)**
## Description
With the new ICA, the ECF is no longer required. Remove references to it from the hand...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#530863)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=530863)**
## Description
With the new ICA, the ECF is no longer required. Remove references to it from the handbook.
### Blocking
* [Bug 530861](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=530861)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/96Listing all copyright holders in the NOTICE file is not necessary2020-11-25T19:36:13ZEclipse WebmasterListing all copyright holders in the NOTICE file is not necessary## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#530477)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=530477)**
## Description
The Eclipse IP Advisory Committee has decided that listing the copyright holders in th...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#530477)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=530477)**
## Description
The Eclipse IP Advisory Committee has decided that listing the copyright holders in the NOTICE file is not necessary.
We should, however, provide some sort of statement regarding how copyright is held (the second form of copyright header references the NOTICE file as the a place to find more information about copyright holders).
First pass at the text of the statement:
--
All content is the property of the respective authors or their employers. For more information regarding authorship of content, please consult the listed source code repository logs.
--
Or something like that.https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/95Add section describing PMC role and responsibilities2020-11-25T19:36:09ZEclipse WebmasterAdd section describing PMC role and responsibilities## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#529388)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=529388)**
## Description
Consider adding some discussion regarding the role of the PMC.
e.g. [1]
--
There are...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#529388)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=529388)**
## Description
Consider adding some discussion regarding the role of the PMC.
e.g. [1]
--
There are a few reason we believe the review of the PMC is still helpful, such as:
* avoid mistakes by new/unexperienced projects
* help projects identify the proper CQ type (for distribution, pre-req, works-with, re-use)
* avoid pollution of the IP work queue with unnecessary CQs
--
More PMC responsibility [2]:
--
That's right, the PMC +1 was never intended as a legal review. It was intended as a check on the technical merits of the 3rd party library. For example is another similar library already in use, or an alternative approach possible that doesn't use the library. Does the library have a healthy community with consistent releases and responsive developers, etc. The PMC also determines the relationship of the library to the project - a hard dependency vs works-with dependency, etc. Maybe it varies across top level projects whether the PMC is actually in a position to know or care about this, and in some cases the sub-project lead is in a better position to figure this out (although I would argue in this case the sub-project lead should be on the PMC).
--
[1] https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/incubation/msg00034.html
[2] https://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/incubation/msg00033.html
### Depends on
* [Bug 500451](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=500451)
* [Bug 508160](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508160)
* [Bug 534264](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=534264)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/94Add information regarding Eclipse Foundation Accounts to the handbook2020-11-25T19:36:06ZEclipse WebmasterAdd information regarding Eclipse Foundation Accounts to the handbook## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#529033)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=529033)**
## Description
We should provide at least some high-level information and pointers regarding Eclipse ...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#529033)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=529033)**
## Description
We should provide at least some high-level information and pointers regarding Eclipse Foundation Accounts, including discussion of things like the committer id and GitHub id (including how and where these ids are used) to the Eclipse Project Handbook. This should all be from the perspective of a committer.
Chris, do we have any of this captured anywhere?
### Depends on
* [Bug 532736](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=532736)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/93Move incubation content into handbook2020-11-25T19:36:04ZEclipse WebmasterMove incubation content into handbook## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#528799)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=528799)**
## Description
Possibly related to [Bug 488421](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=488421)## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#528799)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=528799)**
## Description
Possibly related to [Bug 488421](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=488421)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/92Add a code of conduct to the legal documentation2020-11-25T19:36:02ZEclipse WebmasterAdd a code of conduct to the legal documentation## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#528741)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=528741)**
## Description
Consider adding a code of conduct document to the legal document requirements.
https:...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#528741)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=528741)**
## Description
Consider adding a code of conduct document to the legal document requirements.
https://help.github.com/articles/adding-a-code-of-conduct-to-your-project/https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/91Revise guidelines for NOTICE files in legal document guidelines2020-11-25T19:36:00ZEclipse WebmasterRevise guidelines for NOTICE files in legal document guidelines## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#527696)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=527696)**
## Description
We've put some additional thought into what sort of information needs to be represente...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#527696)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=527696)**
## Description
We've put some additional thought into what sort of information needs to be represented in NOTICE files. At this point, we believe that there are actually two "flavours" of notice. The primary, or "Master" notice file is located in the root of all project source code repositories, and "Distribution" notice files that are packaged in the project's distribution form (e.g. JAR files).
The "Master" notice file provides information that pertains to the _entire project_:
* Basic project metadata (name, urls, location of source, etc.);
* Description of the project's declared license(s);
* Copyright information;
* Description of third party content; and
* (when cryptographic software is present) A cryptography statement.
The "Distribution" notice files are specific to the content that they include (e.g. information that is specific to the source that produces a particular JAR file):
* Basic project metadata (as above);
* Description of the content's licensing (may be different from the project's declared license(s));
* A description of where to find the copyright information; and
* (when cryptographic software is present) A cryptography statement.
If, for example, a JAR file includes only project code, the NOTICE file would describe the project's declared license(s). If a JAR file includes only third party content, then the NOTICE file would describe the license of that third-party content. In the case where a JAR file includes a mixture of project code and third party content, the license statement would be more complex.
Note that the terms of the licenses must be observed. If a license requires that the actual text of the license be included with the distribution, then include it.
Most projects will likely have several "Distribution" notice files; it is likely that most of them will have exactly the same content. This is very similar in concept to what projects do with "about.html" files in Eclipse Platform Plug-ins.
Copyright information must be captured in the source; either in the file headers for individual source files, or in aggregate in the "Master" NOTICE file (or both).
As it would be far too onerous to do so, project teams are not required to break copyright statements into specific individual distribution artifacts. The copyright statement in a "Distribution" notice file can refer back to the "Master" notices as found in the root of the project source.
Note that we understand that this information is captured (and is generally more complete) in Git. The Git repository is a moving target: repositories move, tags get deleted or changed, we may move to different source code management system in the future, etc. The copyright information must be captured indefinitely and so must be captured in the code itself. This has the added benefit of being more readily accessible for legal review by adopters.
Note also that the copyright holder is very often not the same as the author. It is relatively easy to capture author information, but generally harder to map that to a company. The advice given to the Eclipse Foundation is that it is enough to list the authors as copyright holders (with affiliations indicated where possible).
The actual text of the project's declared license(s) is represented in a LICENSE file.
Note that the EF is working on a tool that generates at least some of this legal documentation. That tool is currently labeled as experimental and should be considered as a tool to help gather this sort of information, not a authoritative source.
e.g.
https://www.eclipse.org/projects/tools/about.php?id=technology.dash
### Blocking
* [Bug 508206](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=508206)https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/89Build the Eclipse Project Handbook as EPUB2020-11-25T19:35:56ZEclipse WebmasterBuild the Eclipse Project Handbook as EPUB## Submitted by Torkild Resheim
**[Link to original bug (#527122)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=527122)**
## Description
The EPUB format is popular for publishing books to various devices. The content can be reflowe...## Submitted by Torkild Resheim
**[Link to original bug (#527122)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=527122)**
## Description
The EPUB format is popular for publishing books to various devices. The content can be reflowed to support various screen sizes and most reading systems allows for annotations and bookmarks. This makes the format suitable for user guides and reference manuals such as the "Eclipse Project Handbook".
There are several ways of generating an EPUB from HTML. One method would be to use the Asciidoctor EPUB[1] output. This is an ambitious project that also offers Kindle output format. However, it is still in alpha stage and lacks some important features, such as the automatic inclusion of referenced files (images, CSS, etc.).
The other viable method would be to use the Eclipse Mylyn Docs[2] tools. These only offers means to package already generated XHTML into an EPUB but does this in a fully featured[3] standards-compliant manner. It is also fairly easy to use.
[1] http://asciidoctor.org/docs/convert-asciidoc-to-epub/
[2] http://help.eclipse.org/neon/topic/org.eclipse.mylyn.docs.epub.help/help/epub-ant-task.html
[3] Only DRM and deprecated features have been omitted
### See also
* https://git.eclipse.org/r/111386
* https://git.eclipse.org/c/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook.git/commit/?id=1f495ca67ae33b0173e1204a29fd1eef4998c960https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/88Define "Project Code", "Third Party Content", and "Declared Licenses"2020-11-25T19:35:54ZEclipse WebmasterDefine "Project Code", "Third Party Content", and "Declared Licenses"## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#526822)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=526822)**
## Description
Add these terms to the glossary.
Should we also define "Project Content"?
I'm thinki...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#526822)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=526822)**
## Description
Add these terms to the glossary.
Should we also define "Project Content"?
I'm thinking that we define "Project Code|Content" as the content maintained by the project that contributes to the products ("content produced by project committers and contributors for adoption by the ecosystem and community"). i.e. distinguish it from "website content".
Third Party Content is content that is produced outside the Eclipse Foundation.
Declared Licenses is a synonym for Project Licenses, meaning the licenses by which content is received by the project team and then disseminated to consumers. Note that other Eclipse Project content, or third party content with compatible licenses may be distributed along with the project code; the Declared Licenses do not necessarily include these licenses.
Or something like that.https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/87Move more of the content regarding Contribution Questionnaires to the Handbook2020-11-25T19:35:52ZEclipse WebmasterMove more of the content regarding Contribution Questionnaires to the Handbook## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#526744)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=526744)**
## Description
There is some content here, including some board resolutions and a workflow diagram th...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#526744)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=526744)**
## Description
There is some content here, including some board resolutions and a workflow diagram that may fit in the handbook.
Redirect wiki page to handbook when done.https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/86Explicitely state that "Some Body" is a real name2020-11-25T19:35:50ZEclipse WebmasterExplicitely state that "Some Body" is a real name## Submitted by Oliver Kopp
**[Link to original bug (#526350)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=526350)**
## Description
At the section "Git Commit Records" in the handbook (https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#re...## Submitted by Oliver Kopp
**[Link to original bug (#526350)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=526350)**
## Description
At the section "Git Commit Records" in the handbook (https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/#resources-commit) it reads
Signed-off-by: Some Body <somebody@somewhere.com>
It is not clear to readers that "Some Body" has to be a real name AND the name which was used for signing the ECA.
Most newcomers do not configure their git client correctly and I need a definitive source of truth (which is the handbook).
### See also
* https://git.eclipse.org/r/154335
* https://git.eclipse.org/r/154334
* https://git.eclipse.org/c/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook.git/commit/?id=87b769b99bc23136beec2198a6e045bf77f875c5https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/85[faq] Do bundle versions have to match the release version?2020-11-25T19:35:48ZEclipse Webmaster[faq] Do bundle versions have to match the release version?## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#526174)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=526174)**
## Description
No.## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#526174)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=526174)**
## Description
No.https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/83Move Build and Test Dependencies content to the handbook2020-11-25T19:35:43ZEclipse WebmasterMove Build and Test Dependencies content to the handbook## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#526057)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=526057)**
## Description
Move this content into the handbook.
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/I...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#526057)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=526057)**
## Description
Move this content into the handbook.
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/IP/Test_and_Build_Dependencieshttps://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipse/technology/dash/org.eclipse.dash.handbook/-/issues/82Update legal documentation requirements for Eclipse Platform Features and Plu...2020-11-25T19:35:40ZEclipse WebmasterUpdate legal documentation requirements for Eclipse Platform Features and Plug-ins## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#525401)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=525401)**
## Description
I've taken a first pass at documenting legal document requirements for Eclipse Plug-in...## Submitted by Wayne Beaton `@wbeaton`
**[Link to original bug (#525401)](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=525401)**
## Description
I've taken a first pass at documenting legal document requirements for Eclipse Plug-ins and Fragements [1], starting from the original documentation [2].
With the adoption of the EPL-2.0, we've decided to do away with the SUA. The actual license text can be used in its place for most content. In most cases, this is pretty straightforward and should require no more work than would be required to replace content with an updated SUA. It gets a little weird with Feature Update Licenses which require that the union of licenses in the corresponding plug-ins also be listed.
I've created this bug as a focal point for discussion regarding the content. The exist content is marked as a draft. I'll close this bug after we've decided to remove that mark.
[1] http://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook#legaldoc-plugins
[2] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/guidetolegaldoc-EPL-1.0.php
### Blocking
* [Bug 519789](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=519789)
* [Bug 522264](https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=522264)