Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [science-iwg] Science Top-Level Project Charter
Mike, Andrea,

Thanks for letting us know.

First, what was the board's reason for rejecting it? Everyone on this list - a bunch of scientists who hunt for reasons - would appreciate some information on why they LGPL prereqs clause was rejected. Legal reasons? Direction of the wind that day? 

As for the next steps, Mike and I talked previously about this possibility, and instead of just proceeding without a well-defined LGPL strategy we want to define one. That is, although the board has rejected LGPL prereqs, we should present the board with a coherent picture of the Eclipse Foundation's current policy on LGPL, and how Science will take advantage of that. 

Mike and I thought some official SWG policy doc on this would be a good idea because, at the moment, everything about Eclipse + LGPL is very scattered. If this policy document is an addendum to the Science TLP charter/project proposal, then it will be very clear what the SWG can and cannot support for new and old projects. 

I've been dragging my feet on getting a review of the current EF articles together, but I'll try to get to that very soon.

Jay

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Andrea Ross <andrea.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you Mike. We really appreciate your efforts and the consideration by the board.

Proceeding with the revised Science TLP makes a lot of sense IMHO. I'll consult with the Steering committee so we can make an official decision.

I do want to add that asking for board permission for LGPL prerequisites on a case by case basis is still an option for projects.

Kind regards, and thanks again.

Andrea


On 23/06/16 15:58, Mike Milinkovich wrote:

All,

I would like to inform you that the draft charter for the Science Top-Level Project was rejected by the Eclipse Foundation Board of Directors in their face-to-face meeting last week. Their concerns were entirely related to the licensing section, which went beyond the norms and precedents set by other project communities at Eclipse.

However, the Board did approve a revised version of the Science TLP charter, with a revised licensing section included below. If you want to proceed with this charter, we could start the necessary re-structuring soon. Of course, that is entirely your decision to make. Please advise how you would like to proceed. I am happy to join a future Science WG call to discuss if that would be helpful.

Licensing

Approved licenses for projects under Science include:

  • The Eclipse Public License (EPL),
  • The EPL and the Eclipse Distribution License (EDL, also known as 3-clause BSD),
  • The EPL and the MIT License, and
  • The EPL and the Apache License Version 2 (ALv2),
with preference given to the EPL and EDL.

This list may be amended from time to time by the Science PMC subject to the unanimous approval by the Eclipse Foundation Board of Directors

--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)
@mmilinkov



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


--
Andrea Ross
Director, Ecosystem Development, Eclipse Foundation
Twitter: @42aross, Mobile: 1-613-614-5772

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



--
Jay Jay Billings
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Twitter Handle: @jayjaybillings

Back to the top