Re: [rt-pmc] Dual Licensing RT Projects

[Thomas Watson <tjwatson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, sounds good to me also.  We need to brush off the RT charter anyway.  Its current wording does not make it clear that we are about all kinds of runtime technologies, not just OSGi based ones.  I suggest we cancel this weeks PMC call since EclispeCon is this week and have a call next week to discuss the updates needed to the RT charter.

Tom



Jesse McConnell ---10/29/2013 10:44:46 AM---sounds reasonable to me...nice improvement that better reflects reality :) --

From: Jesse McConnell <jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Runtime Project PMC mailing list <rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Cc: Eclipse Management Organization <emo@xxxxxxxxxxx>, emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 10/29/2013 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [rt-pmc] Dual Licensing RT Projects
Sent by: rt-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx

---

sounds reasonable to me...nice improvement that better reflects reality :)
--
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@xxxxxxxxx


On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Mike Milinkovich
<mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear RT PMC,
>
>
>
> In yesterday’s Eclipse Foundation Board of Directors meeting, a new policy
> was agreed to which has significant positive implications for the RT
> top-level project.
>
>
>
> As I am sure you’ve noticed, many projects within EclipseRT are
> dual-licensed. And most, if not all, of the recent projects required a Board
> vote to approve their acceptance as a dual-licensed project.
>
>
>
> Yesterday, it was agreed to allow top-level project charters to specify
> dual-licensing combinations which were desirable for a project community.
> The TLP charter would have to be approved unanimously by the Board, but once
> it has any new project could be accepted without a Board vote. Accordingly,
> I would like to suggest that the RT PMC revise its project charter to allow
> projects licensed under:
>
>
>
> 1.       EPL 1.0
>
> 2.       EPL 1.0 + EDL 1.0
>
> 3.       EPL 1.0 + ALv2
>
>
>
> This has the clear advantage that any new project interested in coming to
> Eclipse would have a clear understanding of which licensing options were
> open to them, without requiring Board approval.
>
>
>
> I hope this sounds like goodness to the group?
>
>
>
> Mike Milinkovich
>
> Executive Director
>
> Eclipse Foundation
>
> mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> +1.613.220.3223 mobile
>
> +1.613.224.9461 x228 office
>
> @mmilinkov
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rt-pmc mailing list
> rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc
>
_______________________________________________
rt-pmc mailing list
rt-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/rt-pmc