[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [science-iwg] Vote on TLP
|
Everyone,
I'm very glad to see that we are still having this discussion. As I've said many times, and as we've seen several in this conversation reiterate, LGPL is a critical license for scientific software. If we ever plan to be a serious group in that respect, then we must work to accept LGPL licensed software. We - the scientists on this list - know that is a fact, and must work to communicate it to the rest of the community.
Greg Watson and I had a brainstorming session on Tuesday. We would like to propose the following course of action:
1.) We - the group - will write a letter to the board and distribute it to as many board members as we can to educate them about this issue and seek their support. We should engage other working groups too.
2.) Each of us that supports this will pick an LGPL library that would be an important prerequisite for our project(s), by which I mean as a provider of critical and unique capability, and submit it for a CQ. A decent collection of these that will require direct board approval because of their uniqueness and importance will help the board understand the situation.
3.) Spread the news far and wide in the community that we want this.
If these steps don't work, then we will have the data we need to consider our next steps. While this will take time, it is probably the best approach.
As always, your thoughts are most welcome!
Jay
On Jun 30, 2016 11:44 AM, "Mike Milinkovich" <
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do hope that the Science group follows my advice and requests help from the elected Board reps to bring forward their concerns about the LGPL policy. I'm not saying that the status quo is impossible to change. I'm just trying to explain what is and is not possible today.
Sent:June 30, 2016 10:39 AM Subject: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
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.
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
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
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
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?
...
_______________________________________________
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