Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [science-iwg] Benefits of the Science Working Group

Thanks Mike, Christopher,

That was the documentation I was looking for. I don’t have access to edit that page either. I don’t think anyone in the PMC or SC has, so I filed a issue report to have the document updated[1].

Best regards,
Torkild

[1] https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=531774

> 27. feb. 2018 kl. 21:08 skrev Christopher Brooks <cxh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Thanks, that's exactly the info we were looking for.
> 
> I'm not a full member of the steering committee, so I don't have permission to edit that page, but I'm hoping someone who does will edit it.
> 
> After the edit is done, I'll update the wiki at https://wiki.eclipse.org/Science_WG/Benefits
> _Christopher
> 
> On 2/27/18 11:56 AM, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>> 
>> At the risk of being completely pedantic, the LGPLv2.1 topic is actually a feature of the Eclipse Science top-level project, not the working group. Here is the resolution passed by the Board in February 2017 (minutes).
>> 
>> You might actually want to add a copy of this resolution to the top-level project charter, with a link back to the minutes to make this easier for people to find and understand.
>> Approval of the Science Top-Level Project to allow the distribution of LGPL v2.1 dependencies
>> 
>> Mike Milinkovich introduced a proposal to allow the distribution of LGPL v2.1 dependencies
>> under the Science top-level project, the related materials for which is attached as Appendix B.
>> Mike indicated this was originally discussed at the October, 2016 board meeting, and at that time
>> it was requested that the IP Advisory Committee discuss whether there were licensing concerns
>> related to this request; Mike reported the Committee had no concerns. The Board unanimously
>> approved the following resolution:
>> RESOLVED, The Board unanimously approves the use of the GNU Lesser
>> General Public License (LGPL) version 2.1 for dynamically linked Java-language thirdparty
>> components distributed by projects under the Science Top-Level Project. The EMO
>> will provide guidance to the projects to ensure that downstream consumers are aware that
>> any such Eclipse Science projects contain LGPL 2.1-licensed components.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2018-02-27 11:55 AM, Jay Jay Billings wrote:
>>> Apologies for the slow response. Torkild was correct: The main goal was to address the licensing issues around dual licensing with a number of open sources licenses and to address LGPL dependencies. Our TLP has a different outlook on licenses than the other TLPs.
>>> 
>>> Jay
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Christopher Brooks <cxh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi Torkild,
>>> 
>>> I've started https://wiki.eclipse.org/Science_WG/Benefits, which includes some of your text below.  Everyone should feel free to heavily edit the text that is there.
>>> About the LGPL, https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.hsnsfg4e0htq says:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 2.15. With EPL-2.0, would the optional GPL compatibility clause work for LGPL code as well?
>>>> 
>>>> No, it does not. The EPL and LGPL are already compatible licenses if we are talking about components and not cutting-and-pasting code. Our aversion to the LGPL is a business decision, not a legal one.
>>>> 
>>>> Should an Eclipse Foundation project have a strong and unavoidable requirement for an LGPL dependency, we can seek a Board exception.
>>>> 
>>> _Christopher
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/23/18 11:24 AM, Torkild U. Resheim wrote:
>>>> Thanks Christopher,
>>>> 
>>>> I’ve added a bit below.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 21. feb. 2018 kl. 17:24 skrev Christopher Brooks <cxh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> :
>>>>> 
>>>>> During the call, we were talking about the Science Top Level Project (TLP) and it benefits.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Outlining the benefits could help attract new members.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Below are some of the benefits that we discussed, please feel free to edit or add to the items below:
>>>>> 
>>>>> * True collaboration on common tools like January
>>>>> 
>>>> I think January is the prime example of a library that many can benefit from, even from outside of the Eclipse Community. I believe EAVP is also a candidate, or at least could be.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> * Simultaneous releases, which help drive release date selection for individual projects.
>>>>> 
>>>> Yes, and the team sense of accomplishment when it’s out of the door, coupled with press releases etc. helps gather attention.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> * Simultaneous releases also help us get changes through the contribution questionnaire.  Having other members of the Science TLP see the CQ process is helpful.  It could also be that by having a larger combined release, we get more attention in the CQ process than we might if we were individuals.  (FIXME: My guess is that the CQ team would probably correctly state that they play no favorites and handle CQs as quickly as possible with a good set of priorities.  The point more is that we are working on a simultaneous release, which is like working on an entire book or journal, where some of the contributions get helped or pulled along because of the deadline.  Better text could help here)
>>>>> 
>>>> I think the main benefit of doing the doing our release at a different time than the main Eclipse Release Train is that just that. The IP-team will typically be quite busy the months before the June release. So doing the release in October helps getting the attention we need. I also have the impression that the Science CQ’s often require a bit more work.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> * A smaller community of developers who will provide assistance with bringing up a new project.  There is quite a bit to learn and the Eclipse mailing lists are great, but being able to ask an embarrassingly naive question to a smaller group is really helpful.  Part of this is that if a project is a Science project, then the other members of the Science project have a stronger connection to new projects and have more invested in seeing the new project succeed.
>>>>> 
>>>> Absolutely!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> * The Science TLP was able to work with the Eclipse org about licensing (FIXME: need more about licensing, my recollection is that Science projects tend to use non-Eclipse licenses, especially LGPL and we were able to reach an agreement about this.  Or was it about dual licensing?)
>>>>> 
>>>> It was about being able to have LGPL dependencies if I remember correctly. I can’t seem to find the documentation I’ve stored somewhere. However, I think EPL v2 remedies that as it allows GPL dependencies. Jay, would you mind chiming in?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> * We've found it easier to get committers added via the Science TLP.
>>>>> 
>>>> Yes, because there were so many committers coming in at the same time, and going though the Eclipse meritocracy process would take too much time. Also it helps that the Science PMC have a different background and focus than the other PMCs, and might better understand the issue at hand.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I'm sure that there are others.  It might be helpful to have something like the above on https://science.eclipse.org/
>>>> Agreed. Let’s try to make it happen. I think much of this could actually fit into the «elevator pitch» we have discussed, so it would be great if we could make this.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Torkild
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> _Christopher
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> --
> Christopher Brooks, PMP
> Academic Program Manager
> iCyPhy/Ptolemy/TerraSwarm
> University of California, Berkeley
> 707.332.0670,
> cxh@xxxxxxxxxxxx, https://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cxh
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP


Back to the top