Re: [technology-pmc] Requirements for publishing non-release builds

[Eugene Kuleshov <eu@xxxxxxxx>]

Wayne Beaton wrote:
> Agreed. It's a pain.
>
> However, Eclipse projects need provide IP that downstream consumers 
> can use in their own products. In the case of Subversive, their JavaHL 
> bindings are GPL-licensed; we cannot distribute that due to 
> inconsistencies between the GPL and EPL (along with inconsistencies 
> between the GPL and the commercial interests of many of our downstream 
> consumers).
>
> This is a different case. I believe that what we have here is a 
> point-in-time problem.
 Absolutely, I pointed Subversive out as an example of projects that 
have to live with external binaries.
> I don't believe that the Maven Embedder technology qualifies for as an 
> "exempt pre-requisite" and our current IP policy does not provide for 
> the review of pre-release IP.
>
> I'm working Janet and Mike to try and come up with a solution for this.
 That would be really nice and will also help M2E project. We didn't 
rush moving code to eclipse.org, because it been known that required 
dependencies can't be approved, so we still keep development and bug 
fixes at the old version control and distributing project builds from 
the old location.

 regards,
 Eugene