Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

"software user agreement" refers to untraceable license #484

Closed
aleuner opened this issue Jun 18, 2020 · 4 comments
Closed

"software user agreement" refers to untraceable license #484

aleuner opened this issue Jun 18, 2020 · 4 comments
Milestone

Comments

@aleuner
Copy link

aleuner commented Jun 18, 2020

The text of "SPRING IDE PROJECT SOFTWARE USER AGREEMENT" (shown when installing sts4 via e. g. Eclipse marketplace) refers to a "Metro Link Public License 1.00 (available at https://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/supporters/metrolink/license.html)".

That URL gives a "Sorry ... we cannot find this page". A quick web search gave no results.

BTW the referred licences list resembles that of "Eclipse Foundation Software User Agreement". I found Eclipse Bug where removal of the "Metro Link Public License 1.00" reference was discussed and this commit with the same goal.

Please clarify the sts user agreement (license).
Thank you.

@martinlippert martinlippert added this to the 4.7.1.RELEASE milestone Jun 18, 2020
@martinlippert
Copy link
Member

Hey @aleuner , thanks for pointing at this. That license file of the Spring IDE components was created a long time ago and definitely needs an update. I will take a look and update the file as soon as possible.

The update will not make it into the 4.7.0 release, but definitely be part of the 4.7.1 release. Hope that works for you.

@martinlippert
Copy link
Member

From a first look, the item for the Metro Link Public License should be removed from in the same way it was removed from the Eclipse user agreement.

@aleuner
Copy link
Author

aleuner commented Jun 18, 2020

That seems sensible. Unfortunately discussion in that bug report didn't really consider if they were allowed to remove the license reference at all (i. e. whether no longer distributing code or having a better license for it).
I tried (unsuccessfully) to find such a discussions in their mailing list archives but didn't know the best place to look.
Edit: Still seems sensible :-)

@martinlippert
Copy link
Member

I updated the feature properties in Spring-IDE accordingly:
spring-attic/spring-ide@e2be7c6

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants