Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] New IP Process [Was - Re: 11-Aug AC meeting notes]

Hi Wayne,


I think there’s a typo – what I wanted to write is “mature projects couldn’t be Type A”.

But as I read it again, I see you are right – you did also mention the possibility doing periodic Type A or Type B releases with any project.


I’m not yet quite sure how that’s going to work out (see my other E-Mail to Mike).

But anyways, for accuracy of the meeting notes - could you update the Wiki to correctly state what you said ?


Many thanks!



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

direct +43.662.457915.85  fax +43.662.457915.6



From: <> on behalf of "wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx" <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: The Eclipse Foundation
Reply-To: "" <>
Date: Thursday 11 August 2016 at 21:33
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [] New IP Process [Was - Re: 11-Aug AC meeting notes]


I missed this the first time through

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

I don't think that this is what I said.

The phase of the project is separate from the type of IP due diligence used in any particular release.

I did suggest a couple of scenarios...

* A project starts with Type A and stays with Type A for its entire lifespan

* A project starts with Type A and changes to Type B when it graduates

* A project does multiple releases with Type A and a periodic release with Type B.

The point is that the project can decide what level of due diligence to bring for a release.

I also suggested that this will likely result in the IP team doing due diligence on what the project demonstrates they actually need as they get closer to the release with Type B, rather than what they think they need the beginning of a release cycle like we do today.

FWIW, I find it easier to think about this as a has-a relationship, i.e. a particular release has a type of IP due diligence rather than a particular release is a Type A release.

I still think that the blood type analogy works really well and am disappointed at the lack of uptake.





On 11/08/16 03:21 PM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:

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

Hi all,


Notes of the meeting we just had are now online:

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.

_______________________________________________ mailing list
IMPORTANT: Membership in this list is generated by processes internal to the Eclipse Foundation.  To be permanently removed from this list, you must contact emo@xxxxxxxxxxx to request removal.


Wayne Beaton
The Eclipse Foundation

Back to the top