+1
The org.eclipse.jwt.feature issue needs to be addressed.
Wayne
On 06/08/2011 04:32 PM, John Arthorne wrote:
> David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Second, if its one of the other "big hitters",
such as unsigned jars
> or 3 part versioning, or inconsistent license in
repository, then
> you either need to resubmit, or withdraw from being in
common repo
> (you can still release, just be in your own repo/download
site), or,
> third option, talk to your PMC and Planning Council
representative
> to file for an exception for your project.
Since about a third of the features in the common
release repository still have last year's SUA (> 200
features), and
only a few hours to go until the *final* build, I think we
should consider
a blanket exception for the "common license" requirement to
avoid
either a flood of last minute rebuilds and/or exception
requests. For context,
last year there was significant change to the legal text in the
SUA, so
this requirement was very important. This year, the only change
in the
SUA is the addition of the Eclipse Distribution License in the
list of
possible licenses. Since many projects aren't actually using the
EDL this
doesn't feel like a "cannot ship without it" kind of problem
(if you really are using the EDL that's a different story).
Deferring until
SR1 for this kind of change feels like the right answer at this
point in
the process. I'd be curious to hear what other PC members and
Wayne think
about this...
I should point out in the report there is a single
feature with no update license: org.eclipse.jwt.feature. This
does feel
like a stop ship problem, since the Eclipse SUA says that the
user must
be presented with terms and conditions before installing any
software.
John
_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
|
