Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [tools-pmc] Titan's list of "works with" exceptions to full IP review

1. Sounds good.
2. Is correct
[4]. ( libxml2, libpcap, sqlite) sound fine, I think we (me and Doug) stated our agreement there.

That leaves 2 issue to resolve, I believe.

3. Cygwin. To clarify, if I was vague before, my reading of the the "license" in the CQ is that the result could not be used in commercial (closed source) projects -- only open source. You can tell me I'm wrong, but, since Eclipse explicitly tries to be "commercial product friendly", I think it is a valid point to raise. I realize *you* may only be interested in "Titan", but in general, Eclipse projects are to be extensible and usable in commercial (closed source) products.  So, that's why I don't want to rubber stamp that as  "works with".
But, there may be larger, yet easier, question here. You say "if the user prefers Cygwin, he/she will have to install it and compile Titan  on it.".  So? Users could install and compile Titan with anything they want, I would assume. What business of it is yours, exactly?
I say it so "confrontationaly" just to illustrate I must be missing your point. I doubt you are going to list every compiler users might decide to use, so what's so special about Cygwin? I thought it was somehow more integral to your own build process? Is that not true? Or, perhaps I simple misunderstand the nature of Titan? Is Titan an "application" or is it a "build system" itself? If the latter, and you just want to be able to "give directions" for Windows, I'd see no problem with you saying "these are directions for Cygwin, but you can use what ever Windows compiler you would like". If you simply wanted to "list it" -- such as for "marketing reasons" -- I'm not sure that needs any sort of "exception". The exceptions are for things your project plans to use. Right? (Though, it is a good idea not to list things with a conflicting license, I think that is a separate issue that the "works with" issue.)

[5]. Storing in Git. Yes, cool, and good idea. I used to store JVM's in CVS for proper reproducibility over a 10-20 year time frame ... but ... not at the Eclipse Foundation. I'm afraid it is against "Eclipse Foundation rules" with respect to "works with" items. That it is considered a form of "distribution". The related "works with" documents are pretty explicit about that, as I recall. Do you agree with that? And you were asking for an "exception to *that* rule"? If so, since it was a board directive, then I think it's the board that would have to grant to the exception, not the PMC. But, if they happened to ask me, I would advise against it :) Too confusing to users to know "what's being distributed from Eclipse" and "what they get and use at their own risk".

Please correct all the misconceptions I have expressed.

Thanks,





From:        Elemér Lelik <elemer.lelik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:        Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date:        10/28/2014 04:41 AM
Subject:        Re: [tools-pmc] Titan's list of "works with" exceptions to full        IP        review
Sent by:        tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx




Hi David,
 
 
OK , let me try to revisit  these issues, but first some clarifications might be needed:
 
Although I understand your separation below into “git repository” and “build machine”,  our practice is that both the source code for the binary to be produced and all the code needed to build and test it resides in git , and in the same repository, but in different directories ; this permits us to develop the code itself and tests in parallel ; and we would prefer if possible to keep the same code structure  in the final git repository.
 
Of course, your separation  makes sense from IP point of view as   this  is the criteria of which part of the code makes it  into  the final binaries.
 
 
And yes, as you mentioned, understanding and clarifying the fine division between e.g. “works with” and exempt prerequisite” dependencies   is not  easy, especially as there seems to be no consensus among the group itself taking decisions.
 
 
But back to your issues:
 
1.     And then beyond that, it seemed like there were a few requests for which I said there was no good reason not to have full review (which I mentioned in my one by one reviews) ...  and, granted, I was the only one who commented .... but ... one comment is more than zero, and is all "we" have to go on.
 
 
Based on your observations, I have submitted  the source code for a number of dependencies to be reviewed  and to be included eventually in Orbit.
 
8771       ant-contrib 1.0b2-as "works with" exception to full IP review                                      unmodified binary    source code submitted for IP review
8776       antlr 4.1.3 -as "works with" exception to full IP review                                                    unmodified binary    source code submitted for IP review
8777       jung2 2.0.1 - as "works with" exception to full IP review                                                 unmodified binary    source code submitted for IP review
8778       JExcel 2.6.12 -as "works with" exception to full IP review                                               unmodified binary    source code submitted for IP review
8779       commons-collections 4.01- as "works with" exception to full IP review                   unmodified binary    source code submitted for IP review
 
 
2.      I am waiting for is clarification on which are literally only required during build and test time
 
Again, bison and flex are used indirectly, to generate  the appropriate syntaxes , which then  will be included in the final compilation
 
8767       bison 3.0.2 - as "works with" exception to full IP review                 unmodified binary     build dependency only (source generated by bison to be compiled into the project)
8768       flex 2.5.39- as "works with" exception to full IP review                   unmodified binary     build dependency only (source generated by flex to be compiled into the project)
 
 
Of the above,  ant-contrib  is used only during building the Java plug-ins.
 
 
 
3.     I know for "Cygwin" Doug and myself had reservations about it ..
 
The Titan binary can be compiled against a number of platforms, Solaris, Linux, and Cygwin among others.   It appears that there are users who prefer to work with Cygwin and we don’t want to remove this possibility. On the other hand we don’t  intend to distribute
any part of Cygwin, nor in source , neither in binary form:  if the user prefers Cygwin, he/she will have to install it and compile Titan  on it. In our interpretation the quoted exception should cover this by far and we heard no counterarguments only a generic  and vague fear of Cygwin tainting the code.
 
 
For  libxml2, libpcap, sqlite  I believe we have clarified that these are generic Linux libraries present in mainstream Linux distributions;  I have even been rebuked for  submitting them as dependencies.
If you consider them as superfluous , please let me know.
 
 
I agree this project reached an impasse, not in the least due to disagreements among you guys; please help us moving it forward; we rely on your expertise and professionalism.
If 2016 is the date targeted, than maybe we should consider taking  this project elsewhere. There are a number of potential users awaiting the code and asking us daily what’s going on.
 
 
Thank you and best regards
 
Elemer
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent:
Monday, October 27, 2014 3:26 PM
To:
Tools PMC mailing list
Subject:
[tools-pmc] Titan's list of "works with" exceptions to full IP review

 
To answer the dozen of posts, with 1, I'll say what I am waiting for is clarification on which are literally only required during build and test time, combined with an explicit agreement from project these will exist only on build machine, not in a Git repository ... seemed to be some confusion (in my mind) on "what was what" and "what the project understood" about "works with" status. When I requested something similar, it was "pooh-pooh'd by Wayne" as "taking more work" ... and so there it sits ... in impasse.  I think it's hard for the project to "know what to do" when "the PMC and EMO disagree" ... and if the EMO wants to "take over" ... well ... I don't really know what to say about that.

Of course, I've been thinking "I should do that summary soon" ... as soon as I get some free time ... you know, like, 2016 :)


And then beyond that, it seemed like there were a few requests for which I said there was no good reason not to have full review (which I mentioned in my one by one reviews) ...  and, granted, I was the only one who commented .... but ... one comment is more than zero, and is all "we" have to go on.


I know for "Cygwin" Doug and myself had reservations about it ... even though Mike M. did not ... that should be handled as an explicit case of "EMO overriding the PMC" if Cygwin is really required ... if not really required, I'd drop the request if I was Titan.  


Sorry I've not had time to summarize my (and others responses) ... but, it seems that anyone with the need, could do that?


Sorry to be brief, but, I have to run ... and wanted to make some response.






From:        
emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
To:        
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Date:        
10/27/2014 08:03 AM
Subject:        
[tools-pmc] [CQ 8768] flex 2.5.39- as "works with" exception to        full IP review
Sent by:        
tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx





http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8768





--- Comment #5 from Elemer Lelik <
elemer.lelik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  2014-10-27 08:03:49 ---
Hey guys,

is there any additional info you expect from us regarding this CQ?

Thank you and regards

Elemer


--
Configure CQmail:
http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the CQ.
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list

tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit

https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc

Back to the top