|
Hi Bob,
We're discussing ways of the webserver automatically adding
the necessary disclaimer.
The process is not all that bad, and I can serve as your
Mentor.
If the project's purpose is to assemble Community, that's
great already.
I'd like to find time drafting a proposal, but I'm
extremely stressed at the moment... here are some proposal
examples:
As you see, they all look similar and it should not too
hard to get something drafted.
The mandatory points are
Perhaps you could get started on something, and I help with
reviewing and fine-tuning?
The Genuitec / Firefly proposal was also just finished, so
those folks should know the process quite well at the mement... perhaps you'd
like to help?
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical
Staff, Wind River
Target Management Project
Lead, DSDP PMC Member
martin,
could you at least
faciliate the creation of such a proposal; you (obviously!) know the "eclipse
way" and you (obviously!) know what we're trying to accomplish.... [i
must admit, i still am overwhelmed by all of the process]. i'll gladly
serve as a potential "co-lead" of such a project -- though such a project may
really turnout to be just a forum for exchanging ideas and best
practices....
also, could you give me some practical guidance on the
rules for web links. if (say) sysbios.org eventually becomes an update
site housing installable features that are *not* EPL, does this mean i can't
link to sysbios.org. what if (say) sysbios.org *only* held the
meta-data for these installable features (with the actual payload provisioned
from elsewhere); the meta-data could even be licensed EPL!!!! does this
level of indirection enable a link to sysbios.org
now????
bob.
Oberhuber, Martin wrote:
FYI: If we do a project proposal on Eclipse.org (on the
wiki), we can get a newsgroup right away.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber, Senior Member of Technical
Staff, Wind River
Target Management
Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
Here
is my suggestion for getting something started right
away.
<!--[if
!supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Propose
a project with the mission as you have described. Dont specifically call
out any license combination issues in the proposal. Your goal is to create
useful packages. Leave it at that.
<!--[if
!supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->Get
the project created and provisioned. Start the conversations on the
newsgroup, wiki and mailing lists.
<!--[if
!supportLists]-->·
<!--[endif]-->That
will take about 4-6 weeks. I would hope that we have some clarity on the
legal issues by then.
Is
that helpful?
Hi
Mike,
thanks
for your quick response. In fact I just wanted to check on current
policies rather than stressing any policy
change!
In
addition to what Doug already said, I'd just like to mention that I
see the main charter
of this project in having a newsgroup, mailing list and wiki for discussions
among multiple groups, coming up with best
practices.
If
any actual code / packages / downloadables are produced (that's not a must!)
then these will certainly be put onto a non-Eclipse server, just like the
SOC project does it today. So the potential links between Eclipse.org and
the outside could be:
- Eclipse.org
web / wiki potentially referencing the non-Eclipse content /
downloadables. Take care when marking up hyperlinks. Projects such as
Subversive do that today.
- Maybe
(just for convenience, not a requirement!) have an automated build run on
Eclipse.org servers, which generates a package of all Eclipse.org content
PLUS pre-builtin link to an external p2 repo. We'd make that package
available on a non-Eclipse.org server (just have it built on Eclipse
infrastructure).
Do
you think that is possible?
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber,
Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind
River
Target
Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From:
Gaff, Doug
Sent: Mittwoch, 04. März 2009 05:09
To: mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx;
Oberhuber, Martin
Cc: 'Janet Campbell'; 'Bjorn
Freeman-Benson'
Subject: RE: DSDP Packaging Project?
Im
not trying to stress you out! Weve been talking about packaging for quite
some time. The reason its become urgent is because weve finally found
someone who wants to work on it and has some
bandwidth.
Perhaps
this could be a motivator for the IP Committee. I will check with Mark to
see where he left off, and maybe you could give us your best guess on an
ETA. BTW, I dont see starting this on SourceForge as a negative. Its
just a stopgap. We all would like to see this kind of project at Eclipse.
From:
Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 5:40 PM
To: Gaff, Doug;
Oberhuber, Martin
Cc: 'Janet Campbell'; 'Bjorn
Freeman-Benson'
Subject: RE: DSDP Packaging
Project?
<sigh>
So
this topic is so urgent that it went from
I-have-never-heard-of-the-requirement to it-must-be-now in one day?
Ok,
so maybe we need to start out on SourceForge with the intention of moving
it to Eclipse if/when this issue is resolved in the IP
Committee.
From:
Mike Milinkovich [mailto:mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:59 PM
To: Gaff, Doug;
Oberhuber, Martin
Cc: 'Janet Campbell'; 'Bjorn
Freeman-Benson'
Subject: RE: DSDP Packaging
Project?
Because
having installers which prereq (L)GPL code may or may not be construed as
distribution, which results in various legal arguments for or against
whether it is a good thing for Eclipse to do. The IP Advisory Committee is
working through an decision on what our stance will
be.
LGPL
prereqs have been approved in the past. See Subversive as an example. The
installer you are referring to is new ground, and people have differing
opinions as to what that might mean.
I
think this will happen. Just give us a little time.
Mike,
I
want to be clear on why you believe this is not possible. This project
would basically be an installer that has a pre-req dependency to
3rd-party packages only available off-site.
Are
you therefore declaring that the EMO will not approve a pre-req
dependency in this case, as per the process described [1]? Or is the issue
that the wiki/mailinglists/bugzilla could contain discussions of
3rd party dependencies and perhaps URLs to pages that have GPL
content downloads on them?
Thanks,
Doug
[1]
http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
This
is currently not possible. However, it is undergoing active discussion
with the IP committee, and that could change in a couple of months. Too
bad WR's not on the committee any longer :-(
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223
(mobile)
From:
"Oberhuber, Martin"
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:00:24
+0100
To: <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:
DSDP Packaging Project?
Bjorn
told me to contact you regarding the following:
Can
we have a project at Eclipse.org, whose main charter is creating
packages of stuff that include both EPL and (L)GPL things (of course to be
served from non-Eclipse.org servers)? The project would also bringing
together communities and write docs that tell people how to
assemble contents into a p2 Repository.
I
didn't find any definitive answer in the dev.process or bylaws.
Tentatively I'd assume that such a project is possible, since the SOC
project is similar, but what do you think?
Also, if we need the
project proposal (and thus an initial newsgroup) up by EclipseCon, is that
possible?
Background
info is in the E-Mail below.
Bjorn's
initial answer is attached.
Cheers,
--
Martin Oberhuber,
Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind
River
Target
Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
From:
Oberhuber, Martin
Sent: Montag, 02. März 2009
19:33
To: 'Bjorn Freeman-Benson'
Cc: Gaff, Doug;
Schaefer, Doug; 'Frankel, Bob'; 'Russo, David'
Subject: DSDP
Packaging Project?
Importance: High
since almost 2
years there is an idea in the DSDP community about a project to package
together the various DSDP technologies at Eclipse.org along with some free
compilers, debuggers, QEMU etc to get an environment for students etc
that's working out of the box.
TI (Dave Russo)
and ex-TI Bob Frankel (independent consultant) are putting some renewed
initiatives into this. Their vision is to have an all-EPL version of
Eclipse as "bootstrapper" and then have a p2 repository for the non-EPL
content (compilers, debuggers, toolchains, ...) on a non-Eclipse.org site.
Users would provision their toolchains as needed.
All this needs
a lot of work -- writing a toolchain installer, writing docs how to create
the repository, but - most of all - a place where the Packaging Community
could live (newsgroup, mailing list, wiki etc). We anticipate that several
board / processor related communities such as BeagleBoard for
instance would be very interested -- these communities have some
commandline based environments today, and with the DSDP packaging they
could get a full-blown IDE.
The main
question is now: can we have such a packaging project at Eclipse.org,
knowing that many of their discussions and deliverables naturally have to
do with (L)GPL content to be finally served from a different site? In my
(and Doug's) opinion it would be a fantastic signal to the wider
communities if Eclipse.org could be the place to meet and organize, even
if the final content can not entirely be EPL. Of course we understand that
we need to be careful with things such as hyperlinks pointing outside
Eclipse.org.
We need to
decide quickly, since we'd like at least a newsgroup (like for a project
proposal) provisioned by EclipseCon. If necessary, we'll go to
SourceForge, but I do think we'd prefer being at Eclipse.org if we
can.
Thanks,
--
Martin Oberhuber,
Senior Member of Technical Staff, Wind
River
Target
Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm
|
