|Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 3384] autoconf support files Version: varies|
David,I believe (but I could be wrong here) that the issue before the PMC is determining if the 8 files are "exempt prereq" or not. This impacts on the review because if they are not "exempt", then a full IP review must be undertaken. Since the authorship of these files is unknown, such a review is probably impossible.
The situation is slightly tricky because the dependency is on these files, which are generated by autconf/automake, not on the autoconf/ automake tools themselves. So if in #1, "exempt prereq" also include the files generated by autoconf/automake, I think we're good to go, as #2 and #3 agree with my understanding.
Regards, Greg On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:21 AM, David M Williams wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what's being requested here ... so, I'll give along answer: 1.I think autoconf itself (http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/) is fine tospecify as an exempt-prereq, since its pervasive (similar to a JRE, Operating System, etc.) and is simply used during the install. 2.But what's attached to the CQ is a zip of 8 files that will be distributed with your project code, as EPL, using the exception stated in the files:# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under# the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.3. And, in my opinion, it's up to the EMO legal staff to review those 8files, and agree those 8 files can be distributed with your project codeas EPL (well, I guess 7 files as EPL, with the one exception of the install-sh file, which would stay as MIT license). If I understand those 3 points correctly, then +1 from me. Fellow PMC members, please document your agreement, or not, to this mailing list to satisfy the Eclipse Dev. Process, as documented in http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf Let me know if we need a phone call to discuss or understand details. Thanks, From: Greg Watson <g.watson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 07/29/2009 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] [CQ 3384] autoconf support files Version: varies Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx Anybody have any comments? If not, I'd appreciate it if a PMC member would update the CQ as per point 2 below. Thanks, Greg On Jul 21, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Greg Watson wrote:Hi, According to Eclipse legal, the PMC needs to make a determination as to whether this dependency is a "works-with" or "pre-req" (seehttp://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdffor more details). To summarize the situation, PTP requires the following components to be distributed as C source code: - a parallel debugger - a resource manager agent to interface to the IBM PE system - a resource manager agent to interface to the LoadLeveler job scheduler - a resource manager agent to interface to the SLURM job scheduler The components are distributed as source code because maintaining binary builds for all possible architectures is impractical (we did this for early releases of PTP and found that it quickly became a support nightmare.) Distributing as source code overcomes some problems, but introduces others. In particular, building from source is complicated because of the dependencies on pre-installed system software and libraries. To overcome this, we currently use the autoconf/automake tools to manage the build dependency issues. Unfortunately, autoconf/automake requires a small number of files be distributed with the source code in order to correctly configure and build the source. Nearly all of these support files are GNU licensed, but include the following license exemption: # As a special exception to the GNU General PublicLicense, if you# distribute this file as part of a program that containsa# configuration script generated by Autoconf, you mayinclude itunder # the same distribution terms that you use for the restof thatprogram. One other file is licensed under the MIT public license. I believe these dependencies fall into the "exempt pre-req" category for the reasons listed in the CQ, but now throw it open to discussion by the PMC. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have about this CQ. Thanks, Greg this CQ is to approve On Jul 21, 2009, at 6:33 AM, emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3384 Barb Cochrane <barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added----------------------------------------------------------------------------Severity|new |awaiting_pmc Flag|PMC_Approved+ | --- Comment #8 from Barb Cochrane <barb.cochrane@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-21 09:31:14 --- (In reply to comment #7)Barb, I'd say this this falls into the "exempt prereq" category for the following reasons: - the third party software is required for the software to work correctly (in this case it is required for installation rather than operation) - the third party software is pervasive - it is probably impractical to undertake an IP review GregThanks Greg. The process for reviewing "exempt pre-reqs" is documented in the link on comment6, I would very roughly summarize it as follows: 1) PMC has a transparent discussion and conclusion on PMC mailing list (please see link for details regarding topics for consideration, in addition to any other items the PMC and project may identify) 2) PMC updates this CQ with a note that the discussion has happened, a link to it, and a vote (+1, -1) 3) EMO votes on this CQ I will reset the vote and mark this CQ in "awaiting PMC" state until we see an update that the discussion has happened on the PMC mailing list. Auto-Generated Text: IPTeam awaiting response from PMC. -- Configure CQmail:------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the CQ. _______________________________________________ tools-pmc mailing list tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc_______________________________________________ tools-pmc mailing list tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc_______________________________________________ tools-pmc mailing list tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc _______________________________________________ tools-pmc mailing list tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
Back to the top