| Mickael,
I think the IP Advisory Committee and the IP team would be best to have the legal discussion. IMHO the two important things among that discussion are: distribution and liability.
As far as the AC is concerned, we need to discuss whether we want to get into the business of shipping a JRE with the Eclipse Packages and all its technical implications (think security vulnerabilities, response time, communications, respins, etc.) or whether we want to delegate this to an external entity (eg., Linux distribution packager/maintainers).
Bluntly speaking, I have strong reservations that we have the resources currently to manage such a process with the infrastructure at hand and voluntary time of contributors.
Oh and last but not least, we do have an EPLv2 licensed JVM at Eclipse:
It doesn't provide binaries, though.
-Gunnar
I imagine that changes a bit how we can consider including OpenJDK in Eclipse.org projects (I mostly think about non Java-dev oriented RCP or Web apps).
Concretely, does all that allow a project to ship OpenJDK just by opening a CQ or does it still require Board approval? Are there specific constraints that would come with this mix, or is it fully covered by the EPLv2?
Thanks in advance for your insights
_______________________________________________ eclipse.org-architecture-council mailing list eclipse.org-architecture-council@xxxxxxxxxxxhttps://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/eclipse.org-architecture-council 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.
|
