[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [science-iwg] Top Level Project update
|
Thanks Mike! Definitely understood.
Let us know how we can help. If you need concrete examples or anything we can probably provide them very quickly.
Jay
On Apr 20, 2016 3:47 PM, "Mike Milinkovich" <
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2016-04-20 03:34 PM, Jay Jay
Billings wrote:
I think we all know that approval is not guaranteed. However,
if you are passively warning that you think the proposal will
fail, then please feel free to be explicit about that.
Andrea and I are definitely going to try our best to get it
approved. But we think that there is certainly a significant risk
that it will not.
The LGPL has always been problematic for Eclipse. (And we're not the
only ones. The Apache Software Foundation
doesn't
allow LGPL either, for the same reasons that we don't.) In the
two instances where there has been any use of that license in
prerequisites (Polarsys, LocationTech) we were funded by the working
groups to set up separate forges, under a separate brand.
A blanket allowance for LGPL within the
eclipse.org forge will set a
new precedent for Eclipse, and one which the Board will certainly
ask a lot of questions about.
All that said, there are good pragmatic reasons to support this
specifically for the Science community.
_______________________________________________
science-iwg mailing list
science-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/science-iwg