Re: [rt-pmc] OSGi Related CQs

[Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx>]

thank you Jeff...

I am not sure what any of this ultimately means...and a discussion
detailing what specifically is cause for concern is very welcome..

jesse
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx



On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 13:38, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Can we find an open way of talking about this? Having the various projects
> do pair-wise communication with the IP team does not allow the rest of the
> RT community understand or participate in the discussion.  Perhaps we open a
> CQ and post comments there?
>
> More specifically, if there are particular CQs which are causing
> consternation, perhaps you can point us at them. I for one am not sure how
> to interpret points 2 and 3 below. AFAICT the vast majority of our work
> involves implementing a spec (final or draft).  Is that a derivative work?
> is that an implementation from scratch?
> Jeff
> On 2010-04-28, at 1:13 PM, Janet Campbell wrote:
>
> From the Eclipse IP Team.  Please direct any questions related to this
> posting to emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx.
> ------------------------------------
>
> Hello,
>
> Can you please review the OSGi-related CQs you have raised and determine
> whether you have raised the appropriate CQ, or if you need more?  Perhaps
> we’re mistaken, but we get the sense that some projects may be attempting to
> create an Eclipse project-licensed implementation based on the ASL
> 2.0-licensed companion code.
>
> Ø  If your work is not a derivative of ASL 2.0 companion code, but you are
> redistributing the companion code along with your package, then as long as
> you have a CQ for the companion code you’re all set.
> Ø  If your work is a derivative of ASL 2.0 companion code, then please let
> us know.  Development of non-Eclipse code inside Eclipse is something we
> would have to consider; we handle requests like that on a case by case
> basis.
> Ø  If your intent is to create an implementation from scratch and distribute
> under your Eclipse project license, you would need to raise a CQ for the
> related OSGi Specification and its license.  The fly in that ointment is
> that specification CQs will not be approved until we can sort out the
> license verbiage with OSGi.
>
> There is additional context below should you need it.  Otherwise, to the
> extent you have any follow on questions on this topic, please send them
> to emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
> ADDITIONAL CONTEXT:
>
> We have a number of OSGi-related CQs that are either open and awaiting
> analysis, or already approved for use within Eclipse.  It has become
> apparent to us that there may be some confusion related to the type of CQs
> that should be raised, depending on the type of development activity you are
> undertaking or intend to undertake.
>
> 1.  If you have raised a CQ for Apache-licensed code (i.e. if that is what
> is attached to the CQ), then it stands to reason that your use is subject to
> the terms and conditions of the ASL 2.0.  That is, it does not give users
> the right to create an implementation and distribute that implementation
> under the terms of a different license.  It simply allows use of those files
> under the ASL 2.0.
>
> 2.  If you have raised a CQ for a specification (i.e. if that is what is
> attached to the CQ), then your use will be subject to the terms of the
> specification license under which that spec is released.  In the case of
> OSGi, specifications that are not in draft form are typically subject to
> OSGi Specification License version 1.0.   It appears as though this license
> might be the one wherein OSGi may intend to confer upon users the right to
> create and distribute an implementation under a license of the creator’s
> choosing, but the existing verbiage does not appear to expressly grant those
> rights.  Moreover, there are conditions placed upon the rights granted (e.g.
> passing compliance tests) that are inconsistent with open source licenses.
> We have a call scheduled with OSGi board members and legal next week where
> these items will be further discussed.
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>
>