Re: [science-pmc] TeXlipse will probably not make the release

[Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm pretty sure then (the IP Team are the experts, of course), that you're basically good-to-go after the PMC approves.

FWIW, the PMC can cite this discussion in their approval process.

That Jazzy dependency is the only real potentially time consuming piece. But it's Type A, so we might get some license-compatibility goodness after the PMC approves it. Note that it might be rejected initially because LGPL use in Eclipse Science is an exception to our process; the IP Team will have to give even positive license results a quick once-over. 

Hint, hint, PMC...

Wayne

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Torkild U. Resheim <torkildr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Wayne,

My comment are below.

27. sep. 2017 kl. 22:58 skrev Wayne Beaton <wayne.beaton@eclipse-foundation.org>:

Known problem. This is on my short list: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=509307

Don't panic about the licenses. By their nature, the works with dependencies must be installed by the user, so they have to agree to the license.

Good 😄 

Well... mostly don't panic. How you access the content needs to be sorted out. In general, if you're doing the equivalent of calling the via CLI then we're probably okay.

Does Texlipse *directly* call all seven of those? i.e. does it make direct CLI calls to an executable from every one of those packages?

Wayne

Yes it does. Subclasses of org.eclipse.texlipse.builder.AbstractProgramRunner does a thing similar to what Eclipse CDT does when calling GCC. So all interaction with these programs are through the command line, passing arguments and reading the response. I see no evidence of any other means. TeXlipse works on most platforms, and the only JNI calls I find is to a DLL which is built from TeXlipse source code, so I'm very certain.

Best regards,

Torkild

--

Wayne Beaton

Director of Open Source Projects

The Eclipse Foundation