[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- From: "Christian Saad" <christian.saad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:23:58 +0200
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Thread-index: Ack1cfx2Kz+liUyDS6m0sFeHws+1JgAV2xAQAAGHikAAAOvMUA==
I'm posting this, since Sharon can't reply to the mailing list
Von: Sharon Corbett [mailto:sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Gesendet: Freitag, 24. Oktober 2008 14:01
An: 'Christian Saad'
Cc: 'Java Workflow Toolbox'
Betreff: RE: [jwt-dev] CQs
Hi Christian, et al:
Correct, based on Florian's response regarding jwt-we-view-uml CQ, you may
go ahead and request that it be withdrawn via the CQ. We can then close out
the CQ and you may release that code following your successful review.
I'll stand by for information on the other three CQs.
Intellectual Property Analyst
Eclipse Foundation Inc.
Tel: 613-224-9461 ext. 232
From: Christian Saad [mailto:christian.saad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 7:27 AM
To: Sharon Corbett
Cc: Java Workflow Toolbox
Subject: WG: [jwt-dev] CQs
seems that, in the end, Florian couldn?t resist checking his mails during
his vacation ;)
According to his information, at least jwt-we-view-uml is definitely free
from third-party code and was developed completely as a part of JWT. I'm
guessing this means we can include this component as soon as the release
review was held and the corresponding CQ can be canceled, is this correct?
For the three transformation components, Mickael, Stephane, could you
provide information about their contribution status? Thanks!
Thanks again for your support,
Von: jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jwt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im
Auftrag von Florian Lautenbacher
Gesendet: Freitag, 24. Oktober 2008 02:47
An: Java Workflow Toolbox
Betreff: Re: [jwt-dev] CQs
I ve seen that there will be a release on the upcoming Wednesday. However,
due to Chris' last mail I'm not sure whether the new components are
included or not.
2694 jwt-we-view-uml - technology.jwt initial contribution Eclipse
2698 JWT Transformation Base Eclipse Public License
2699 JWT2XPDL transformation
2701 JWT to BPMN transformation
jwt-we-view-uml: this code has been completely written by myself with
support from Chris, so all by committers, should not be a problem so.
transformation base comes from Mickael and maybe other persons from
jwt2xpdl is OpenWide as well.
JWT to BPMN comes from Stephane.
So for the other three I can't answer for sure whether they
ve written it for theirselves, but I guess so. So all of these CQs might
be included in the upcoming release next Wednesday.
Thanks for clarifying this with Shannon, for the future this will make it
a lot easier.
Good luck with the release, I won't be available the next days again on
the internet, so I won't be able to support you here. Thanks for all the
Best regards and greetings from my holiday in Sydney,
> Hi all,
> concerning the CQ issue, I've talked Sharon Corbett of the Eclipse IP team
> who has been really supportive.
> She said that, as Mickael already suspected, CQs only have to be created
> - there is third party code or cryptography involved
> - some of the code has been written by non-committers
> - some of the code has been written outside/before the JWT
> If this is not the case, these important points remain:
> - The submission should be under the supervision of the PMC.
> talked to Wayne who said that it is not necessary to post on the PMC
> list if the PMC is informed about the ongoing development in the project,
> however it should be posted on the dev mailing list and a bugzilla entry
> with attached code should be created.
> - The submitted files must have all necessary copyright
> like correct headers and be published under the EPL.
> Effectively, for us this means:
> - We can submit code that conforms(!) to the aforementioned
> requirements at any time and we do NOT need to write CQs for these
> - The IP team was under the impression that the currently pending
> CQs were entered because the code came from outside JWT. I'm not quite
> if this is the case or not since Florian submitted most of them. If this
> actually not true, then the CQs can be discarded and we can include these
> components in JWT 0.5.0. However, we have to wait until Florian comes back
> since he has to confirm himself that the code complies to the
> - All in all this means that we can probably release the
> transformation components as part of 0.5.0 a few days after the workflow
> editor (when Florian comes back) and we do not have to write CQs for new
> components like examples for extension points.
> Nevertheless, Sharon encouraged us not to hesitate to contact the Eclipse
> team if something IP releated seems not quite clear and also suggested to
> take a look at the visualized eclipse legal process:
> jwt-dev mailing list
jwt-dev mailing list