That sounds like a good plan :-).
Am 01.07.2016 um 03:22 schrieb Jay Jay
Billings:
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
_______________________________________________
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
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OpenChrom - the open source alternative for chromatography / mass spectrometry
Dr. Philip Wenig » Founder » philip.wenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx » http://www.openchrom.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
