Hi Sharon,
Thanks for YOUR support!
Cheers
Erwin
From: Sharon Corbett [mailto:sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 5:24 PM
To: Erwin De Ley <erwin.de.ley@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx; Science Industry Working Group <science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Science PMC communications <science-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Use of another non-standard license SISSL (was RE: [science-iwg] [science-pmc] Use of LGPL)
Erwin, the CQ's remain with the IP team. Initial triage is slated for next week. Unfortunately, extra time will be required due to the license as well. I hope to be in a position to provide an update by end of next week.
Thanks indeed Mike, Jay, all who have been involved in this.
For Triquetrum we have 2 CQs for another non-standard license at Eclipse : Sun Industry Standards Source License (SISSL)
http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12474
http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12473
(this is about DRMAA, a standard API to interact with computing grids or other distributed resource managers)
According to EMO/Sharon this also has to be approved by the board.
Is there any news on this already, as well?
Thanks again
erwin
P.s. cfr initial emails about this on the incubation list, e.g. in attach.
Jay,
Thanks. I appreciate the kind words.
As a next step, I would like to ask the group to provide a list of any necessary LGPL libraries that fall outside the scope of this resolution. (Or a re-affirmation that [1] is still the right list.)
Let's work towards ensuring that we apply the additional policies that I noted below, and get the approvals in place for the Science projects to be able to at least optionally install these additional libraries. I understand the attraction to a blanket permission,
but I honestly believe that we can get solutions in place for most, if not all, of the components you need.
Thanks.
[1]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QLPndPFW-8jye7Kkvkf1K_4gEL-ZmEblo_MDxfgimR8/edit#gid=0
On 2017-02-15 6:07 PM, Jay Jay Billings wrote:
Mike,
This is great news! Thanks for letting us know. I think this is a great step in the right direction and it is only a matter of time before we convince the board to support the rest of our requests.
Thanks again for all the hard work you put into this. For everyone reading this, Mike has been working tirelessly behind the scenes to make this happen and has just been a great champion for our needs to the board.
On Feb 15, 2017 17:27, "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
I am pleased to let everyone know that this morning the Board passed the following resolution.
Resolved, The Board recognizes that the Science Top-Level Project is forced to use LGPL-licensed dependencies because of the nature of their community. Therefore, the Board unanimously approves the use of the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
version 2.1 for dynamically linked Java-language third-party components distributed by projects under the Science Top-Level Project. The EMO will provide guidance to the projects to ensure that downstream consumers are aware that any such Eclipse Science projects
contain LGPL 2.1-licensed components.
Please note that Science projects can request the use of LGPL-licensed prerequisites written in C using the process described in this policy:
https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/LGPL_API_Policy.pdf
Furthermore, where a component meets the definition of a "works with" (e.g. optional) dependency it may also be under the LGPL.
https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.
I realize that this does not provide everything that was originally requested, but I hope you agree that this is a significant step for the Eclipse Science community.
|
