The PMC may push back on a CQ if the license is obviously a no-go.
However, the PMC is not expected to have expertise in licensing
matters and if there is any doubt, should just punt to the IP Team.
That is, of course, assuming that a CQ has technical merit.
Also, I will try and encourage a project to use a more recent
version of a library when a more recent version has already been
approved by the IP Team.
Wayne
On 14/03/16 05:16 PM, David Smiley
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:37 PM Eike Stepper < stepper@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> (license), and to humbly ask that another PMC member
"+1" the CQ. As an aside -- I think this step ought to be
> eliminated for certain categories of licenses! Lets
stop wasting people's time on both sides.
I'll bring the topic up on the next Architecture Council
call. Can you please elaborate on the "certain categories of
licenses" part of your suggestion?
It's truly up to the Eclipse's IP Team, not to me. I
would imagine that the more "viral" licenses (e.g. GPL)
might require more IP team review than anything else but
since I don't do their job, I am not one to say. As a
reviewer of other CQs in my PMC, that's really all I care
about.
~ David
--
Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer,
Author, Speaker
_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
incubation@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
|
