Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[technology-pmc] Eclipse IAM: Possible need for 3rd party dependency approval

Dear PMC members,

During the IP review of the code contribution for IAM (, we have been prompted to ask the PMC the appropriate dependency type for maven archetypes used by the code. I'm forwarding the whole conversation and copying Sharon so she's aware of the PMC decision.

Maven Archetypes are project templates that are downloaded on demand from maven repositories. As such, they can have any content and license and the full list of available archetypes can not be determined in advance.

A similar thing happens with maven artifacts (archetypes are just a type of artifacts). To put it simply, a maven artifact is anything that can be downloaded from a maven repository (public or corporate, with any licensing terms and any content). Typical artifacts are binary jars, source code, javadocs and metadata.

By reading the Eclipse Policy and Procedure for 3rd Party Dependencies, I think that we don't need to declare a dependency:
The key issue we need to address is the one where projects are essentially bypassing the IP due
diligence process by prereq'ing third party software, which is to be downloaded and installed separately by the user, instead of redistributing such software in their projects.
(Emphasis mine)
Since IAM downloads the files on its own, I don't think the policy rules applies (the user does not download or install anything).

To me, IAM behavior is no different than P2, Buckminster, WTP installable runtimes, Mylyn issue and patch management and many other eclipse projects which use available external resources.

In any case, if the policy is to be followed, I think that IAM would need to define a "works-with maven artifacts" dependency (if such a generic statement is valid).

On the same line, IAM is able to download repository indexes from arbitrary locations. Should we ask for a "works-with repository indexes" also?

It can also download archetype lists from any location (like a wiki page). Does this require a "works-with artifact lists"?

Abel Muiño

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Abel Muiño <amuino@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: CQ2723: q for Eclipse
To: Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Carlos Sanchez <carlossg@xxxxxxxxx>, Barb Cochrane <barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Everything is clear except for "Point 2 - files are not packaged with IAM or in SVN - they are downloaded at Runtime", which I think I didn't expain clearly enough.

The user of IAM can describe the artifacts (files) that he will be using and it will then ask IAM to download them as needed. Those files are not required by IAM and, more importantly, are not known in advance.

Those files are downloaded from locations unknown to us (the user can point to several locations, some of the files might be internal to his organization).

I would say the IAM's situation is not different from P2/Update Manager or Buckminster (which can download any kind of file), CVS/SVN tooling, (which also can fetch some files in behalf of the user) or maybe the "downloadable runtimes" from WTP (which are created by third parties without knowledge of the WTP developers).

We can talk this with the PMC, but I'm hoping that it is just my bad explanation which caused a misunderstanding, and we can skip IP review of every single file that can be downloaded while using IAM (which, to put it simply, is an infinite number).

Thanks for your time and good advice!

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Guys:

Regarding Point 2 - files are not packaged with IAM or in SVN - they are downloaded at Runtime.  This means that your project has a dependency on these files.  As such, please see the Eclipse Guidelines for Third Party Dependencies.  You will need to discuss which dependency applies in this situation with your PMC via the PMC Tech Mailing List.  You will note that "works with" dependencies can be approved solely by your PMC.  However, "pre-exempt" dependencies must be approved by the EMO via a submitted CQ.


Regarding Points 3 and 9 – Even a few lines of code from any third party package must be requested via a CQ if they are being distributed from Eclipse.  You can request a "subset" of files for any component from Maven that you require.  You do not have to request the entire component.  Please note in cases where a small amount of third party code is included in an EPL File, we would expect to see a reference to the third party license and identification of third party package below the EPL header.  In the case where third party files are modified and distributed by Eclipse, a CQ again is required and the modified files would be solely under the third party license not the EPL. 


Regarding the last point of delaying the submission of CQs for Maven components (29 source/binary dependencies),  we typically do not review alpha or beta code unless there are extenuating circumstances involved which are dealt with on a case by case basis.  However, if any of the components are in RC stages, we would recommend that you enter the CQs now as the NonEpl due diligence queue is quite long.  For third party code where a full release is imminent, you can enter the CQ now with the latest version and update the CQ when the code is fully released as long as the CQ has not yet been reviewed – this will ensure you are in the queue.


Regarding the advice concerning once a version of a component has been approved; new versions are easier to process.  Yes, this is mostly true depending on the length of time and the amount of changes in the approved code base versus the new code.  If both of these are minimal we perform a "diff" scan which typically takes less time but again keep in mind the NonEPL queue is long.


I hope this helps.  I'm copying my colleague, Barb Cochrane, on this email as Barb handles most of the third party reviews.




-----Original Message-----
From: Content-filter at [mailto:virusalert@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Abel Muiño Vizcaino
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 4:51 PM
To: Sharon Corbett
Cc: Abel Muiño Vizcaino; Carlos Sanchez
Subject: CQ2723: q for Eclipse


Hi Sharon,


I have some questions that I think would be better addressed outside 

of the CQ.


Point 2: I'm not sure we need a CQ for this. The files are not 

packaged with IAM or in svn. They are downloaded as needed at runtime.


Points 3 and 9 are not covered by another CQ. Since we only use a few 

lines of code, I'm wondering if we need to file a CQ for the whole 

Maven component (I guess that we can file a CQ for the XSD files 

alone, not so sure about java files).


Slightly related to this is that we've been delaying the submission of 

CQs for maven components (29 source/binary dependencies), since many 

of them have not made an official release yet and we might need to 

update them very often. We currently host them outside of eclipse.


Our mentors told us that once a version of a component has been 

approved, new versions are easier to process. If that's the case, we 

can submit the current (unreleased) versions of the components for 

review and re-submit released versions later.


Is that right? can we submit a zip of code for an unreleased version  

of the maven components and have it approved?




Abel Muiño -

Abel Muiño -

Back to the top