User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
Thanks Tobias to re-emphasize that LGPL, historically, is a
widespread used license in the scientific ecosystem.
It would make things much easier, if we can find a way for the
Eclipse Science projects to use LGPL libs.
Best,
Philip
Am 30.06.2016 um 16:39 schrieb Tobias
Verbeke:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OpenChrom - the open source alternative for chromatography / mass spectrometry
Dr. Philip Wenig » Founder » philip.wenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx » http://www.openchrom.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~