Max,
yes, it looks like you have a reason to tell this, but I think
like it's better to ask Sharon (or other authority of Eclipse IP
Team) for the comments.
I've included Sharon Corbett to the CC's list. Sharon, could you
please put your comments on this thread?
Personally me - I don't see a reason to change the type of JSDT
and/or WTP project just because we have to review "an executable"
that we want to make possible to use and re-distribute in JSDT
project. However the the IP due diligence is to be done for that
"executable" itself, for sure, in way of License Compatibility
Review.
Sharon Corbett clearly told us that field "Project: Type A (or B)"
doesn't mean "change JSDT Project to be a Type A (or B) if it's
not", but it does mean the only "Type of Review for the certain CQ
will be of Type A (or B)" - so no changes on JSDT project were
proposed. See her comment #13 for CQ#11306:
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11306#c13 :
As you may be aware, the Eclipse Foundation has
recently made changes to its
Intellectual Property Policy. These changes will offer Eclipse
projects a
choice in the type of IP due diligence they require for
their non-eclipse
content, as follows:
- Type A – License Compatibility Review Only (New)
- Type B – Full Review (License Compatibility, Provenance Check,
Code Scanned
for Anomalies)
In other words, "Project: Type A" indicates the way of reviewing
the subject of the CQ (Node.js executable in our case) - it
doesn't change anything on JSDT Project itself.
However, if I'm wrong and misunderstood the meaning of those "Type
A review" and "Type B review" - definitely we have to ask a
question to Eclipse IP Team for the explanation.
Thanks for pointing this.
Victor
On 12/02/2016 08:54 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: