Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [science-iwg] Thoughts on 3d party library license?
Thanks Sharon! That's very helpful.

I've added the SWG on the TO line of this email so that they can comment on those CQs and which ones are needed for the science simrel. I don't know who has been tracking that this year.

Jay

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hey Jay:

Thanks for checking!  Yes, the CC BY 3.0 has been approved for Eclipse distribution.

 

On that note, I do believe the Science projects are hoping to have another simultaneous release this October. 

 

As such, it may be a good time to review current IP requirements for that release.  We currently have the following open IP tickets for Science:

12551   science science.texlipse               TeXlipse initial contribution       

12753   science science.scanning             science.scanning initial 

13673   science.chemclipse                       Apache PDFBox Version: 2.0.6                 

13917   science.xacc                                    XACC Initial Contribution  (AWAITING PMC)

 

It would be extremely useful to understand if any of these are required for the October release and/or if any IP requests have not yet been arranged?  Any CQs not yet filed should be arranged prior to the end of August at the latest.


Best Regards,
Sharon

 

From: Jay Jay Billings [mailto:jayjaybillings@gmail.com]
Sent: August-11-17 7:17 PM
To: emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Thoughts on 3d party library license?

 

Dear EMO IP team,

 

What the IP team's stance on this license, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported?

 

 

Best,

Jay

 

--

Jay Jay Billings

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Twitter Handle: @jayjaybillings




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

Back to the top