All previous "releases" of
VIATRA were IP clean - at least this
aspect was verified by the Eclipse IP
team. For all contributors of the VIATRA project,
we have faxed a corresponding Eclipse
Consent signed by the employers to the Eclipse Foundation.
My estimate of 15+ developers included
those people who contributed to
experimental features which have not
yet reached a certain level of maturity to
get submitted as a contribution to Eclipse.
As for the four developers mentioned
in CQ 6703, their share of contribution only relates to
the delta, that is, the novel contributions
since the last "release". There are 12 contributors
to the total code base - as you list
Wayne Beaton <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>
"'PMC members mailing list'" <modeling-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
is not operating as an Eclipse open source project
Eclipse projects must follow the Eclipse Development Process.
Operating in a "single committer mode" is no excuse. The processes
exist for a reason, primarily one of protecting the developers, the community,
and adopters from IP exposures.
Eclipse projects are responsible for maintaining a log of all contributions.
How are the contributions of 15+ developers accounted for? All of the project
commits are attributed to you, and there doesn't seem to be 15 developer's
worth of contributions captured in Bugzilla. Based on the three contribution
CQs, I have the following list of contributors:
Daniel Varro (GMT committer)
Are there other contributors? Were all of these contributions accepted
in conformance with the IP Due Diligence process? 
The contribution attached to CQ 6703 represents, AFAIK, the entire code
base of VIATRA2. It lists four developers. If it's a revision of the previoius
contributions that includes all of the code, shouldn't it list all of people
who contributed to the previous work? Should it list 15+ developers?
This is a potentially huge IP exposure. Who are these contributors? What
did they contribute? Do they have the rights to contribute? Do their employers
consent to the IP being distributed under the EPL?
This needs to be sorted out immediately.
Are you in a position to bring the project into conformance with the Eclipse
Let me give some further information about the background of this issue.
The VIATRA2 project has been an incubation phase as part of the GMT Eclipse
subproject since its start in 2005/2006.
It started as a purely academic initiative, and slowly evolved into something
Since GMT was an umbrella project for many different initiatives related
to modeling and code generation,
a single committer account was granted for me - as VIATRA project lead.
With 6-8 other projects,
GMT already had quite a high number of committers in the very beginning.
After the birth of the Modeling project, several subprojects of GMT (e.g
ATL, oAW) gradually
moved to Modeling. VIATRA stayed in GMT up to now - with a single committer
the fact that 15+ people contributed it during the last couple of years.
Due to this "single committer mode", it was impossible for us
follow the Eclipse processes as it caused unrealistic overhead. Furthermore,
has somehow become a "forgotten" project in the last couple of
years, so no one was really there to
help us avoid policy violations.
(In fact, our ad hoc release numbers date back to a time when the current
was not yet in effect - and several other former GMT projects were renumbered)
Of course, I would be grateful for any kind of assistance or mentorship
we can get
to sort out non-conformance issues. But it would be also great to get 5-6
committer accounts first for the regular VIATRA contributors to avoid my
Daniel, if you have not already joined the GMT dev mailing list, please
I am concerned that the VIATRA2 project is not operating as an Eclipse
open source project
CQ 6703 was submitted today. That CQ is for a code contribution. This appears
to be a significant contribution of code. It is the first contribution
in more than two years to the project. In comments on that CQ, the project
lead indicates that the contribution is "the newest combined release
of the VIATRA2 model transformation framework" and that "In each
iteration, we compile the contributions from the developers and push the
code to Eclipse.org."
This runs counter the open source rules of engagement set out in the Eclipse
Development Process . Specifically, the project is not operating in
an open and transparent manner leaving little opportunity for others to
join the project. The project has been established for some time, and should
be operating fully at eclipse.org.
There are several developers listed in the contribution. Based on the amount
of contribution, I believe that each of these developers should become
committers and do all future work directly in the eclipse.org code repository.
The project website  indicates that there have been numerous releases
of the project, including statements like "The VIATRA2 Release 3.1
has been approved by Eclipse.org!". AFAICT, the project has not undergone
a single release review as required by the Eclipse Development Process.
The project must plan to undergo a formal release as soon as possible.
Further, the 3.2 release indicates a third-party update site only on the
downloads page . It is okay to provide alternative download sites, but
they must be *alternatives* to eclipse.org; the downloads for the project
must be obtainable from eclipse.org. A third party site cannot be the "official"
The project is--according to my records--in incubation. Incubation branding
must be provided on the download page and in downloads. I have marked the
project as "incubation-non-conforming"; the project cannot benefit
from parallel IP until the incubation branding issues is resolved.
I believe that the project would benefit greatly from Architecture Council
mentorship (I'm not sure why mentors weren't assigned in the first place).
Can the modeling project suggest somebody who might be appropriate in this