Re: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] New IP Process [Was - Re: 11-Aug

["Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mike,

 

Let’s assume that my company wants to re-distribute Type B software only, because we want to make extra sure to avoid any lawsuits or other hidden risks down the road.

 

If any project can choose when to release as Type A or Type B, wouldn’t that make it impossible for my company to assemble a “Type B Only Product” very soon ? Since it would become hard to understand all IP Logs, dependencies etc finding Type A stuff. And if we find one, it may be impossible to rip out that specific type A version and replace by another.

 

To me, this either jeopardizes the value of the Coordinated Releases, or it makes the value of any Type B project disappear.

Or you assume that nobody would actually want any genuine Type B any more ?

 

Or am I missing a point ?

 

Thanks,

Martin

--

Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Owner – Development Tools, Wind River

direct +43.662.457915.85  fax +43.662.457915.6

 

 

From: <eclipse.org-architecture-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Eclipse Foundation
Reply-To: "mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx" <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx" <eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday 11 August 2016 at 21:21
To: "eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx" <eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [eclipse.org-architecture-council] New IP Process [Was - Re: 11-Aug AC meeting notes]

 

On 2016-08-11 12:00 PM, Oberhuber, Martin wrote:

Hi all,

 

Notes of the meeting we just had are now online:

https://wiki.eclipse.org/Architecture_Council/Meetings/August_11_2016

On the topic of the changes to the IP Policy (section pasted below)....

At the moment there is no intent to include the IP review type (Type A vs. Type B) in the project branding. It will be shown to users in places like the PMI project metadata, the PMI release record, and the release IP Log. But there is no need to include it in the project branding, nor in the naming of release artifacts like zip and jar files. Type A projects are full Eclipse projects, and are in no way second class citizens.

Orbit will continue to include only those libraries which have completed the full Eclipse IP review.

BTW, the new process will actually be quite different than the parallel IP process. The parallel IP process is basically optimistic concurrency --- eventually the work gets done. Type A is just don't do the prereq scanning work at all. That's a big difference.

Wayne: Changes to IP Policy

EF is working on a change to the IP Policy as blogged by Mike recently

·         Introducing a new, lighter-weight type of due diligence (license check on contained code only - no provenance)

o    Only check what a project "claims" for Type A releases, but not check if it's actually true

·         Projects could choose to be "Type A" or "Type B" per release

o    Expecting that Vertex would move to Type A ... others to do some releases Type A, and at some point do Type B

o    Sounds very similar to "parallel IP process" -- how to mark up what is what? How to deal with aggregates as being Type A or Type B ?

o    Wayne: Mature projects couldn't be Type B - only for Incubating ones. Helps them work out which software / licenses they actually need.