Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [] Europa CQs 01.11.2007.xls

Title: Bjorn Freeman
Hi Bjorn,
thanks for the answer.
I think I do see the extra value of getting known-to-be-IP-clean
3rd party libs from Eclipse. I also understand that reviewing
3rd party libs is more effort then reviewing EPL contributions.
And I guess I'm OK with a Jan.31st cutoff date for 3rd party
I think that my main concern of threatening contributions away
would be addressed if there were a clear separation between
3rd party contributions and EPL contributions [probably handled
even by different people?] and knowing that EPL contributions
are possible even after Jan.31st.
At some time, Janet said they were trying to address plain-EPL
contributions like medium size bugfixes within a 2 week timeframe.
I guess I'd be happy if that would actually work, and I could live
with 3rd party contributions taking much longer.

Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member


From: [] On Behalf Of Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [] Europa CQs 01.11.2007.xls

Martin (and everyone else involved in Europa),
But let me also say that I'm sort of alarmed by the fact that the cutoff date for 3rd
party contributions is Jan.31st for a release targeted end of June.
You'll pleased(?) to know that it alarms us at the EMO as well. However, Janet and her team spent a fair amount of time trying to determine how much work there will be and what deadline was needed in order to accomplish the work before the Europa release.
... due to lack of resources. Is there a bottleneck? How does that compare to
other Open Source initiatives like Apache or Sourceforge?
Apache and Sourceforge do not vett third-party contributions; Eclipse does. This IP cleanliness guarantee is a clear value to the Eclipse members. Consequently, the Board of Directors requires all Eclipse projects to continue to follow the defined IP Policy. The EMO is not at liberty to change that Policy.
But it feels like there's a desperate need for good ideas how to improve things.
Perhaps it would help to find ways how we can better leverage and pull 3rd party
libraries out of their native homes at runtime rather than investing so much time
into finding out whether we can redistribute them ourselves? - Anybody with
good ideas please speak up!
The problem isn't where the libraries come from but rather whether they are IP clean. You can probably figure out some work around the rules where you download the libraries from another place but (a) many of them are explicitly not allowed by the IP Policy (i.e., you're not the first to think of this idea) and (b) no matter where the libraries come from ( distros or other places), the Members still want the libraries to be vetted. And it turns out that vetting third-party code is a very painfully slow process.

We'll talk more about this at the face-to-face meetings in San Francisco in a week and a half. I will even have some advice from the legal team on what you can do to help speed up the reviews of your contributions.
Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Director, Open Source Process
Eclipse Foundation
voice:  971-327-7323 (pacific time)
email:  bjorn.freeman-benson@xxxxxxxxxxx

Back to the top