If the project comes to Eclipse under the BSD 3-clause, we won't need copyright assignments from past contributors. Eclipse does not work that way.
Hi Jay,
Right, sorry about the misstep about openness. Over time my works
seems to have moved away from newsgroups and large public mailing
lists to smaller lists with smaller communities. I'm fine with
having the conversation be public.
The control issue is not a huge issue, and it certainly has come up
in the past. Just something to watch for is all.
Part of my email really was about reusing the code in the ptII
core. These would be the classes in the kernel, actor, actor.lib
and other packages. We don't have to reuse this code, but making
these classes available could be a win. The issue is that proving
that the code is not encumbered and getting assignments of copyright
could be tricky, but is doable.
I'll post to the forum momentarily.
_Christopher
On 6/9/15 8:39 AM, Jay Jay Billings
wrote:
Christopher,
Thanks for the letter. Its great to meet you. I went ahead
and CC'ed the Science Working Group list on this since it
has turned into a technical discussion. Setting up meetings
is OK to do in private, but we need to keep technical
discussions in the open.
I absolutely love the name Triquetrum. I'm an
astrophysicist, so I know it well.
I am very glad to hear that you are joining the Foundation.
That is really great.
I wanted to address the issues of openness and access that
you bring up. First, Eclipse projects are required to use
the Eclipse infrastructure, even from the the very
beginning, and to have all lists, forums, and bug reports
out in the open. Repositories can be on either Eclipse.org
servers or Github and most new projects are using the
latter. Private communication can happen of course, but the
largest part of the discussion must be public. We will find
a very cold reception from the community if we are not open.
As far as access to the code goes, the only people who will
have commit privileges will be people working on the project,
which will most likely be only the people on this list. All
contributions from other sources will have to pass through a
contribution mechanism such as a pull request or bug report,
which requires review by committers and the IP team. So, I
wouldn't worry about updates to the core from the perspective
of outside developers.
Actual project committers might change things in the code
contributed from Ptolemy, - 'Ptolemy core' - but that's their
job. Most likely we will have our own parts of the project -
even our own high-level cores - that we are developing though.
For example, I most likely won't be working on any pieces of
Triquetrum contributed from Ptolemy because ICE doesn't use
them and I don't know how they work; I'll be working on the
service layer and any workflow components above it that
directly relate to ICE, like our Item and ItemManager
infrastructure if I add that as part of the initial
contribution.
I was very interested in the last part of your email about
the different pieces of Ptolemy and how it works. I think it
will be easier to list these components of the initial
contribution and others on our Forum, so I started a thread.
(I personally have trouble reviewing this kind of thing over
email.)
https://www.eclipse.org/forums/index.php/m/1697926/#msg_1697926
This is very exciting!
Jay
--
Christopher Brooks, PMP University of California
Academic Program Manager & Software Engineer US Mail: 337 Cory Hall
CHESS/iCyPhy/Ptolemy/TerraSwarm Berkeley, CA 94720-1774
cxh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 707.332.0670 (Office: 545Q Cory)
