Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [science-iwg] Vote on TLP
Thanks for the clarification, Mike.

That helps indeed.

Regarding dual licensing (and focusing on the rationale behind, not necessarily on the policy as is), it seems to me that the concerns of the board you listed can be covered by the EPL part of the dual license.

To provide some context: it seems desirable for the science working group to welcome as much good scientific software projects as possible. Some of these projects have historically been distributed under LGPL licenses. If they become Eclipse projects it is perfectly legitimate to require distribution under the default license Eclipse feels comfortable with (EPL) and which enable particular business models for downstream usage of these projects or project components.
If, however, the original license (in this example LGPL which is popular in the science world) cannot be maintained in a dual licensing model, it can kill the ecosystem around the software project and may constitute a considerable barrier for bringing projects to the science TLP.

Best,
Tobias

From: "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Tobias Verbeke" <science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Science Industry Working Group" <science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 3:21:27 AM
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Vote on TLP
All,

The draft provided is not a proposal. It's what the Board has approved. You can either accept or reject it in its current form. 

FWIW, no I don't think that the Board would accept dual-licensing with the LGPL at this time. Please see my previous comments about the current stances regarding the LGPL.

Hope that helps.

Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx 
+1.613.220.3223
From: Tobias Verbeke
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 10:03 PM
To: Science Industry Working Group
Reply To: Science Industry Working Group
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Vote on TLP

Thanks, Jay, for the comment.

From that point of view is there a reason not to add the following bullet points to the proposal:

- The EPL and the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 (LGPLv2.1)
- The EPL and the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 3 (LGPLv3)

?

If there is a dual license, people can always use the code of a project under EPL if that fits their purposes better than using it under LGPL.

Best,
Tobias

From: "Jay Jay Billings" <jayjaybillings@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Science Industry Working Group" <science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 4:35:03 PM
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Vote on TLP

I assumed that this was the board trying to make sure that entities could use the codes under the EPL too since may companies feel like it a kind of preferred license. I could also see them having little interest in a bunch of non-EPL codes at Eclipse.

I'm fine with it. Personally I think it isn't necessary, but IANAL.

jm2c,
Jay

On Jun 29, 2016 4:52 PM, "Andrea Ross" <andrea.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tobias,

That's a good question regarding the EPL + other license. I'll have to defer to Mike on that as I wasn't at the meeting and don't know the reasoning.

Kind regards,

Andrea

On 29/06/16 16:48, Tobias Verbeke wrote:
Hi Andrea,

No objection, but besides the already discussed veto against LGPL licensed third party dependencies, there have also been changes to the TLP text that enforce dual licensing (EPL and *) whereas in the previous version science projects could also be licensed under * only e.g. Apache 2.0 only or MIT only.

I am wondering (open question) whether SWG people have any opinions or comments on this?

Best,
Tobias

From: "andrea ross" <andrea.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 10:54:08 AM
Subject: Re: [science-iwg] Vote on TLP
Hi Everyone,

The Science TLP document is here.

Baring any objections articulated on the list or to me in private by tomorrow morning (EDT), I'll send out an email to all Science WG members to ask them to support (+1) abstain (0) or vote against (-1) accepting this Science Top Level Project Charter.

Members will have 10 days maximum to vote.

Once the results are in, I'll report on them to the Steering Committee & group as I proposed.

Kind regards,

Andrea

On 29/06/16 11:19, Torkild U. Resheim wrote:
Thanks Andrea,

Yes, I’d go for option B too. Simple majority decides. And we need to publish the amended TLP proposal somewhere. I cannot seem to find it.

Best regards,
Torkild

29. jun. 2016 kl. 16.16 skrev Andrea Ross <andrea.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

Hey Torkild,

Here's a few options.

Option A: The Foundation does have infrastructure for this but it's a bit heavyweight for this, in my opinion.

Option B: I'd be happy to run the vote on behalf of the group. What I'll likely do is just email all the member representatives and ask them to please reply with their vote, and then I'll report on the outcome. For transparency's sake, I can share the who voted what with the Steering Committee.

Option C: If we wanted a completely public vote, we'd simply ask for +1/0/-1 here on the list.

I recommend Option B, for what that's worth.

Andrea

On 28/06/16 16:53, Torkild U. Resheim wrote:
Hi all,

If we’re going to make all 15 members vote I think we should make the voting process a bit more formal and also make some effort to ensure that members with voting rights are aware of what is going on. I think several representatives could be on vacation already. It starts early, in northern Europe at least. Andrea, do the Foundation offer any infrastructure we can use for this purpose?

Best regards,
Torkild

28. jun. 2016 kl. 21.08 skrev Jay Jay Billings <jayjaybillings@xxxxxxxxx>:

Or, as Greg says, we can just say "Go!" and wait 10 days. That works too.

Jay

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Jay Jay Billings <jayjaybillings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andrea,

In general I would agree with you, but having the steering committee get the sole deciding votes on something as important our own TLP seems unfair. I mean, honestly, I think everyone will vote "Yes," but I think everyone would like the chance to say they voted on "our TLP" just like they voted on "our charter." Just seems more fair to me, that's all.

Greg, I think institutional votes for participating and steering committee members will be fine. It would be one vote per organization in that case.

If there are no objections I say that we start the vote by roll call?

Jay

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Andrea Ross <andrea.ross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jay,

For what it's worth, this is what the Steering Committee is meant for.

Kind regards,

Andrea


On 28/06/16 11:50, Jay Jay Billings wrote:

Everyone,

What's the best way to hold the vote on our amended TLP that Mike presented? Furthermore, who will be eligible to vote?

Jay



_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
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



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


_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
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

Back to the top