[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [rt-pmc] 08 Sep 2010 - RT PMC call follow-up
|
Jeff, I think we are totally on the same page here..imo we just need a
definitive statement that our basic view of the world can be
effectively reconciled with IP policy and we should be good to go...
so much of this is (I think) pretty common sense, its just making sure
that what I/we think of as common sense passes the legal litmus test
sufficiently :)
fwiw I am tickled to see these distinctions being discussed
cheers,
jesse
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 15:15, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for the update Jesse. I really think that we are dealing with a
> conceptual and terminological mismatch here.
> A bit of context. The IP policy is in place largely
> "to provide information and mitigate risk relevant to the
> adoption and use of Eclipse projects in commercial products."[1]
> Looking at the current IP policy [0] there appears to be a gap. We have the
> following terms:
> “Content” is copyrightable material, including without limitation software,
> documentation, articles, whitepapers, and presentation materials.
> “Distributed Content” is Content which is distributed by the Eclipse
> Foundation via its Repository or other means in a manner consistent with
> this Intellectual Property Policy.
> “Eclipse Content” is Distributed Content intended to be developed or
> modified by one or more Eclipse Projects (as that term is defined by the
> Eclipse Development Process), regardless of the license or licenses that
> govern the use of that Content.
> “Non-Eclipse Content” is Distributed Content which is not Eclipse Content.
>
> The notion of "Released Content" (potential new term) does not appear here.
> Released Content is the Distributed Content that we intend or expect our
> adopters and users to consume. In the absence of this term there is an
> implicit assumption that any and all Distributed Content is intended to be
> "used" by our end-users. Many of the cases at hand here relate to
> Distributed Content that is not yet (or will never be) released and is not
> intended to be used by anyone other than the committers/contributors. For
> example, tests. In [2] Barb signal towards this distinction by acknowledging
> that some people will get code from an "Eclipse repository before it is
> “officially” released by a project". That is, there is Distributed Content
> that is Released and Distributed Content that is not.
> In the absence of this distinction, Section IV of the policy has no choice
> but to say that all Distributed Content has to go through the IP process.
> This is the problem.
> In [1] Mike M recognizes this challenge when he says
> "...test-time or build-time dependencies that are simply an artifact
> of our production processes likely require IP processes which vary somewhere
> between minimal and none."
> Similarly, speaking of the yet to be released Content in [2], Barb
> acknowledges agrees that "this small risk would not justify the adverse
> impact such additional controls would have on the community".
> Summary: Recognizing that the constituents for whom the policy is in place
> likely don't know or care what is used to test the things they consume, it
> is hard to motivate considerable additional work for the IP team or the
> committers to deal with Content that "will never see the light of day" as
> Released Content.
> To be clear, I am in now way suggesting that all test code be
> IP-process-free. I am however suggesting that there are clearly some chunks
> of code or dependencies that matter only at points in time that have little
> to do with our adopter community. The IP policy should capture this.
> Jeff
> p.s., While INAL I thought it would be fun to put forward a definition of
> Released Content:
> "Released Content" is Distributed Content that is intended by the producing
> projects to be adopted or used by their end-user community. Released Content
> would include but not be limited to Distributed Content that has been or
> will be the subject of a Release Review.
> [0] http://eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_IP_Policy.pdf
> [1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/rt-pmc/msg01595.html
> [2] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/rt-pmc/msg02007.html
> On 2010-09-14, at 3:12 PM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
>
> I had a talk with Barb about this a bit and wanted to follow up on
> this thread with this blurb from our conversation...
>
> my current frustration with the IP policy/procedure is the existence
> of a 'safe on the build server' classification for some things. In my
> little slice of heaven we write software that builds straight out of
> svn...and the current definition of 'distribution' includes what is in
> svn...which means that I am unable to make use of this 'safe on the
> build server' classification of IP. From what I hear the whole 'safe
> on the build server' exists because there is an explicit understanding
> that the builds produced on the build server are not 'eclipse
> distributions'.
>
> so I don't understand how there exists a case where a build occurring
> on the eclipse build server is not a distribution but somehow software
> being built from something checked out from SVN is some how an
> 'eclipse distribution'. I understand that is absurd and its not
> 'really' but if I want to open a CQ to use something like apache
> directory service its basically a rubber stamp if I have it on the
> build server and use it there, but if my build system has an actual
> 'dependency' declared on it for usage in a test case (not going into
> my distribution at _all_, just a unit test) it is suddenly a full
> fledged dependency (because there is no distinguishing between test
> scope or distribution scope).
>
> cheers,
> jesse
>
> --
> jesse mcconnell
> jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 15:45, Jeff McAffer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hey Barb,
>
> Thanks for the additional info. Comments embedded.
>
> Jeff
>
> On 2010-09-13, at 2:11 PM, Barb Cochrane wrote:
>
> 1) Eclipse-developed test code deposited in the repository calling
>
> third party test code which does not reside on Eclipse servers.
>
>
>
> Ø In the cases described, third party code could be characterized as a
>
> “workswith” or perhaps “exempt pre-req”
>
> Can you clarify "could"? Is it "should" or "must"?
>
> As I recall from the discussion there were various shades here. There are
>
> a) test setups that just need some other function to be present but do not
>
> reference this function directly in any code.
>
> b) test setups that need specific function to be present but still do not
>
> reference the function directly
>
> c) test setups that directly reference the third party libraries but that
>
> function is not part of the actual released output of the project
>
> Other scenarios where the third party references come from (to be) released
>
> project output are easier to handle as classical dependencies. The subtlety
>
> in the above comes from the absence/presence of direct references and the
>
> fact that test code is not generally released so is not typical consumable
>
> project output. That is, we don't expect any significant number of people to
>
> get this code (see case 2 below). Under that model, scenarios a-c above
>
> would be instances of case 2.
>
> Ø The process outlined in the Guidelines for the Review of Third Party
>
> Dependencies would apply (as there is no distinction made based on the type
>
> of code involved)
>
> Ø It is our understanding that the dynamic nature of calls to these
>
> third party packages would make the task of creating CQs for each package an
>
> extraordinarily heavy burden
>
> Ø The IP team is in the process of reviewing the IP Policy to try to
>
> identify what we can do to alleviate this burden. Janet will raise any
>
> suggested changes to the Policy to the IP Advisory Committee as necessary.
>
>
>
> 2) A risk was identified in that there are a small number of
>
> bleeding-edge developers (low single percentage of users) who may download
>
> code from the build server or from the Eclipse repository before it is
>
> “officially” released by a project. In either case, the downloader may
>
> consume code that has not been fully reviewed / approved by the IP team.
>
> We appreciate this risk being highlighted but feel the additional controls
>
> necessary to eliminate this small risk would not justify the adverse impact
>
> such additional controls would have on the community.
>
>
>
> 3) There was a question raised as to why CQs are required for
>
> “workswith” dependencies, but not their further dependencies. In the case
>
> of dependencies, we are trying to highlight to our downstream consumers the
>
> Eclipse Project dependencies in such a way so that they may investigate
>
> further and make decisions accordingly. In so doing, we must determine what
>
> level of information is reasonable to provide given our resource
>
> constraints. It was felt that the first level of information regarding
>
> dependencies struck a reasonable balance given our current staffing levels.
>
>
>
>
> I hope that helps. If an additional conference call would be useful,
>
> please let me know. I hope to update you further on the first topic in the
>
> next couple of weeks.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Barb Cochrane
>
> Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
>
> Phone 613.224.9461 ext 232
>
>
>
> Eclipse Summit Europe, Nov 2-4
>
> http://www.eclipsecon.org/summiteurope2010/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
