Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [technology-pmc] Pre-reqs for some Linux Distros projects
If OProfile was reviewed more than, say, two years ago, then there wouldn't be any record of it in IPZilla. There's likely a record kept elsewhere and we can--if necessary-- get the IP team to look it up.
I agree that OProfile and valgrind may be classified as "exempt". This is based on an understanding that, despite the fact that I have neither of these bits of software installed on either of my Linux boxes, both are readily obtainable, can easily be installed, and the class of user who makes use of the sort of functionality provided by these pieces of software probably would have them installed. 

The EMO still needs to approve.

Wayne

Andrew Overholt wrote:

Hi,

There is one existing Linux Distros project (OProfile plugin(s)) and one
new project (valgrind plugin(s)) that have pre-reqs on underlying tools
(OProfile and the valgrind tools respectively).  Reading [1] I think
these fall under point 4 of the policy:

  "A pre-req may be classified as "exempt" by the EMO if the software is
  pervasive in nature, expected to be already on the user's machine,
  and/or an IP review would be either impossible, impractical, or
  inadvisable. Exempt pre-req's can be approved for use by the EMO
  without IP review. Examples: Windows XP, Sun JRE. However, an exempt
  pre-req may be disallowed by the EMO at its discretion."

Does the Technology PMC agree?

The OProfile plugin was originally contributed to the CDT project years
ago and then moved into Linux Distros when it was created since this was
deemed a better home for it.  It contains a dual-licensed (EPL and GPL)
piece written in C/C++ which makes use of the OProfile libraries.  I'm
very much not a lawyer but I was told by the people involved with this
originally that it was all okay and had been vetted by eclipse.org
legal.  Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that there is a CQ for it and
unless Keith Seitz (original author, CC'd) has email on the subject, the
initial review may be lost.  How should we proceed?

Thanks,

Andrew

[1]
http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
_______________________________________________
technology-pmc mailing list
technology-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/technology-pmc

Back to the top