RE: [orbit-dev] RE: Bugfixing 3rd party code due to lack of a release?

[Karice McIntyre <Karice_McIntyre@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Mart,

The about in the Commons Net source plugin doesn't seem to be updated 
(compared to the about in the binary plugin).  Since this version of 
Commons Net is a patched version, this should be documented.  I would 
think a re-spin is required to rectify this. 

Since we are talking abouts, the date on the about in the binary plugin 
wasn't changed but the content was - the date in the about should reflect 
the date of the last change to the about. 

Thanks,
Karice McIntyre
IBM Ottawa Lab
613-726-5552
karice@xxxxxxxxxx




"Oberhuber, Martin" <Martin.Oberhuber@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
12/09/2007 02:47 PM
Please respond to
Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>


To
"Janet Campbell" <janet.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Adrian Cho/Ottawa/IBM@IBMCA
cc
Orbit Developer discussion <orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject
RE: [orbit-dev] RE: Bugfixing 3rd party code due to lack of a release?






Hi Janet, Adrian and all -

thanks for all your extremely valuable and quick help on this.
It's very interesting that the Website Terms of Use already
have this case in mind so stuff coming in is automatically
dual-licensed if necessary!

I've got the declaration of the original patch author to
dual-license his contribution under EPL + APL:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=202758#c18
The CQs are:
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1752
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1753

Chris, I have also asked (as friendly as possible :-) at the
Commons-dev mailing list whether they could consider a 
Service release. Given, though, that a service release would
need to go through a full IP review, and given that these
very small patches are really a showstopper fix for us, I'd
really love having them in our Fall maintenance release.

I'm waiting for the "Go" from EMO legal now.

Thanks again!
--
Martin Oberhuber
Wind River Systems, Inc.
Target Management Project Lead, DSDP PMC Member
http://www.eclipse.org/dsdp/tm 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Cho
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:46 PM
> To: Orbit Developer discussion
> Cc: Orbit Developer discussion; 
> orbit-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx; Janet Campbell
> Subject: Re: [orbit-dev] RE: Bugfixing 3rd party code due to 
> lack of a release?
> 
> Sorry to jump but just to add my $0.02:
> 
> If you're going to get them to dual-license it under the 
> Apache and Eclipse
> licenses then you can obviously take it under the Apache and 
> incorporate it
> into an Apache file.  Interestingly, if you read the 
> Eclipse.org Terms of
> Use which governs all contributions through any of the Eclipse.org
> website/server channels (e.g. Bugzilla, CVS, mailing lists, 
> newsgroups,
> etc.) you'll see in the fourth last paragraph that it was 
> setup so that if
> anybody contributes a modification to something we are 
> maintaining under a
> license other than the EPL, then they contribute under that 
> license (e.g.
> Apache in this case) + EPL.
> 
> Adrian
> 
> Adrian Cho
> Development Manager, Intellectual Property
> IBM Ottawa Lab
> adrian_cho@xxxxxxxxxx
> External: (613) 726-5536
> Tie:  654-5536
_______________________________________________
orbit-dev mailing list
orbit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/orbit-dev