|
Doug,
You are correct about the guidance to split the
framework into separate parts with respective licenses (EPL & LGPL) and CQs.
We choose not to pursue that recommendation as the framework code is not easily
separable.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:40
AM
Subject: Re: [dsdp-pmc] FW: webkit4swt
status - CQ rejected due to LGPL dependency
Thanks, Wayne, I'll continue to pursue through the channels
I've been going through. The rumors you speak of aren't rumors and I'll see if
I can twist some arms :). BTW, I interpreted the Foundation's comments that
they wanted two CQ's one for WebKit, and one for the EPL parts, and not as an
outright rejection. But I may have been missing some of the
communication.
Cheers,
Doug S.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Wayne Parrott <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
This is a quick summary of the CQ to include a
WebKit4SWT contribution that my team has developed and been using for the
past 10 months. One of our Blinki project goals has been to
leverage webkit4swt to provide the foundation for a mobile
web tooling framework. When we submitted the CQ we knew the WebKit LGPL code
was most likely out of scope due to Eclipse policy to
avoid hosting GPL/LGPL code. But we proceeded with the effort as a
formality to see if there has been any relaxation of the policy (we heard
rumors that LGPL may be accepted at some point). We were politely informed
that the webkit LGPL code was a concern and we agreed to close the
CQ since we have a fallback plan of hosting the framework outside of
Eclipse.
Our relationship and interaction with the
foundation has been professional and cordial in everyway regarding the
webkit4swt CQ. We are moving forward to bring a webkit solution to
Eclipse within the current policies and practices.
Wayne
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:00 AM
Subject:
Re: [dsdp-pmc] FW: webkit4swt status - CQ rejected due to LGPL
dependency
Sorry guys for butting in, but I'm a little confused by
what happened with this CQ. Was it rejected off-line? I didn't actually
see it stated that it was rejected, just closed. I've had
discussions with Foundation staff and it was my understanding that there
was a chance that WebKit could be approved. The platform team, actually
more the vendors using the platform, have had no end of issues with
Mozilla's XUL and I was suggesting that WebKit would be a better
replacement and we could standardize on it for the three major OSes we
support. I'm just wondering if we've given up too easily
here. DougS.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Gaff, Doug <doug.gaff@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
FYI for the
PMC
Wayne, perhaps you should
update the PMC on what will be done in Eclipse vs. at the git
repository?
This is a quick update
on the status of the webkit4swt OSS contribution. The CQ https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3534 has
been rejected due to a strong LGPL dependency of WebKit. This
outcome was not totally unexpected due to long standing Eclipse
policies regarding this type of license. There are no hard feelings from
this team as we have a good Plan-B. We pursued this approach as we
wanted to go through the proper procedures to ensure that we give this
project our best effort.
Our Plan-B is to host
webkit4swt on a new GIT repository. That repo is being prepared this
week and we should soon be able to move forward with this OSS
effort.
_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc
mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc
mailing list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
_______________________________________________
dsdp-pmc mailing
list
dsdp-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/dsdp-pmc
|
