Re: [eclipsefp-develop] Project structure, rfc homepage, license

[Andrei de A. F. <arc...@ya...>]

--- Leif Frenzel <hi...@le...> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> first of all (although it is not the freshest of all
> news ;-)
> congratulations to Andrei for getting the first
> version of the OCaml support
> out. (Andrei, do you think we should announce it on
> eclipseplugincentral.com
> and eclipse-plugins.info also?)

   Yes, we should probably do this; it's just that I
don't frequently visit these sites.

> 
> Now that we have two different sub-projects relying
> on the common plugins, I
> really should do my homework and make them better
> available. I have renamed
> them to start with the net.sf.eclipsefp.common
> namespace prefix, and I will
> put them into the CVS soon. We should then in the
> future discuss any changes
> we make to these plugins, to make sure that none of
> our code breaks.

   The good news is that with CVS we can always
rollback stupid changes if necessary :)

> 
> Also, we need a new homepage that reflects that we
> support both languages
> (Haskell and OCaml). It should also be organized in
> a way that common things
> (like license information) is there only once (not
> duplicated on every
> subproject page). As a suggestion, I have made a
> sketch for such a page,
> which reflects the layout I have in mind (but has no
> design - I just stole
> it from the eclipse.org website). It is at
> http://eclipsefp.sf.net/newhome/
> . All comments (or even better, volonteering for
> help with the web stuff :-)
> are most welcome.

   Well, the structure seems good for me. I'm no
designer, so I can't volunteer :)


> 
> Then there is the issue of the license: The Eclipse
> project is currently
> changing the license from the CPL to the EPL
> (Eclipse Public License). The
> main changes are putting the Eclipse Foundation
> (instead of IBM) into the
> stewardship and a more community-friendly stance
> regarding patent licensing.
> (More info is here:
> http://eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.html ).
> 
> Since the two licenses (CPL and EPL) are almost
> identical, but the latter is
> under the control of the foundation and also the
> license with which Eclipse
> itself goes, I think we should follow them and also
> change with one of the
> next releases. What do you think?

   I will read the faq and new license, but so far I
think we should change the license too. 

   So, I have already some work planned towards the
next version of the OCaml plugins, but it will
probably include also:

  - the change of license
  - using the net.sf.eclipsefp.common plugins 

> 
> Ciao,
> Leif


---
[]s, Andrei Formiga



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. 
http://messenger.yahoo.com