|
I think we’re agreeing. I’m not saying bypass the legal process. I actually didn’t realize we had that power anyway.
I guess I’m not understanding what the question from Sharon is. My primary interest is to make it easy to for users to get Cordova when working with Thym. Whatever legal thing needs to happen to enable that, that’s what I’m +1’ing.
Doug.
I think the PMC's interest is not "legal" per se, but to decide if this is a case if it is ok to " by pass" the normal, Eclipse legal process, as directed by the Board of Directors. [See note below]
(Thanks for being so open about your biases, Doug -- but not sure that strengthens your case. :)
I guess it's not clear to me why it is not submitted for legal/IP review? Like other third party code? Smells like a "let's by-bass the rules" case to me ... and I've heard of no good reason why. (I can imagine some, not all
of them ill-intended, but haven't heard any reasons stated).
And, it would be an even better end-user experience, if it could be "built in" to Tyme, while leaving the door open to allow others to "play" if they want to in the future. (Same as WTP model).
Plus, there has been no answer to my question, is there any useful function without it? If not, you are essentially forcing users to download it ... which has tons of complications for commercial adopters ... and is the opposite
of "user friendly" in the "free and open" user community. Granted, "Apache license" is usually fine and more easily approved than others ... but that, and these other reason brings us back to "why not submit what you need for IP review, and see where that
leads"? Obviously, you wouldn't distribute the platforms that Cordova supports (WIndows 8, Android, etc.) ... those are the "works with" items in this case, not Cordova itself.
I think I have contributed all I can to this discussion, I hope I've made my points, so if I'm quite for a while, it is just to give others plenty of chance to speak up.
Thanks,
= = = = =
Note: I'm basing my "interest" in the first two paragraphs of that document, at
https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
<quote>
The key issue we need to address is the one where projects are essentially bypassing the IP due
diligence process by requiring third party software as a prerequisite where such third party is to be
downloaded and installed separately by the user, instead of redistributing such software in their projects.
This is a concern for the Eclipse community because it is our goal to ship projects which contain
adequately reviewed IP and are, therefore, ready for commercial adoption.
Recognizing that it is probably impossible to codify a process precisely, the recommendation is that we
establish a policy framework for the Project Management Committees (PMCs) and the Eclipse
Management Organization (EMO) to use in classifying and judging each situation, and then leave the
implementation and final decision to the PMCs and the EMO.
</quote>
From: Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
To: Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 09/09/2014 01:01 AM
Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] FW: [CQ 8391] Apache cordova Version: 3.0.0 and later
Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
I’m not sure what the PMC’s interest is here. There’s a legal question which I assumed was between the Eclipse IP team and the project.
At any rate, I would be perfectly fine if Thym only ever worked with Cordova and find the button to download Cordova an important feature for it’s users. Thus my +1.
But then, I’m perfectly fine if CDT redistributed the GPL GNU toolchain so I wouldn’t have to do it externally.
Doug.
From: Gorkem Ercan <gorkem.ercan@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, September 8, 2014 at 3:01 PM
To: Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [tools-pmc] FW: [CQ 8391] Apache cordova Version: 3.0.0 and later
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 2:29 PM, David M Williams <david_williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I feel I'm being asked to "rubber stamp" something that hasn't been fully explained.
I made my initial comments in https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8391#c7
(where I expressed doubt that it met the sprit of the "works with" clause of
https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
To me, the spirit of that clause is, some Eclipse software is perfectly fine without the pre-req, but the pre-req is typically available, and if it is available, then the user gets some extra functionality. [The example of a "web browser" is given in the document.
A more recent example might be the use of SWT's "GTK 3" .. if GTK 3 is available, it uses that for extra functionality, and if not, drops back to using GTK 2. And GTK is pretty much universally available on Linux distributions, and if by chance, neither are
available, I believe they have some other "fallback" to use. Notice they do not simply "make GTK easier to get."]
So that leaves me with some unanswered questions:
1) is Tyme useful/usable without it? And this "Cordova" just gives them something extra?
I think, this is more like Apache Tomcat and WTP server tools relation rather than GTK. Similar to WTP does with Tomcat and other application servers , Thym also provides a download button to its users so that they can download
a Cordova version from Apache and use it for testing and distributing.
2) It was stated "nothing is being distributed" with Tyme, but the intent was '...to make sure Thym users can get set up with Cordova
with minimal effort." I interpret this as opposite of the "works with" clause ... that it is not commonly available, so there is ?something? being distributed that makes it easier to get. What is is that something? What happens if a user does not want to get
it?
Cordova is not commonly available as in GTK but as in Tomcat server. Cordova is a shell iOS, Android (or other supported platform's) application that is packed together with the HTML, _javascript_ and CSS that you have developed
as your application. This allows mobile applications to be developed with HTML5 and deployed to multiple platforms.
I hope I don't seem I'm "holding things up" over technicalities ... but I believe it's my (our) responsibility to understand and judge these "rules" as best we can. In that spirit, I'm fully acknowledging I may simply be ignorant of what's being done and what
"Cordova" is ... hence ... open and transparent discussion' :)
Thanks,
From: Doug Schaefer <dschaefer@xxxxxxx>
To: Tools PMC mailing list <tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 09/04/2014 12:17 PM
Subject: [tools-pmc] FW: [CQ 8391] Apache cordova Version: 3.0.0 and later
Sent by: tools-pmc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Anyone want to deal with this? I¹m not sure why we have to vote on this.
+1 from me in any case.
On 2014-09-04, 10:02 AM, "emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx"
<emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8391
>
>
>Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
> Severity|triage |awaiting_pmc
>
>
>
>
>--- Comment #18 from Sharon Corbett <sharon.corbett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>2014-09-04 10:02:52 ---
>Thanks Doug;
>
>Unfortunately there actually needs to be an "open and transparent"
>discussion
>on the matter to ensure the exception meets the Eclipse Third Party
>Dependency
>Guidelines [1] followed by PMC voting on the issue. This needs to be
>captured
>and most projects perform this via the PMC Mailing List.
>
>Typical rule of thumb is to use the standard voting rule...Five days max
>(or
>until everybody votes), minimum of 3 +1s, no -1s.
>
>The PMC Mailing URL is then provided back here in order for the IP Team to
>process the request accordingly.
>
>Can I leave this with you and/or David to initiate and provide an update
>here
>of the relevant URL when the vote has completed?
>
>Regards,
>Sharon
>
>[1]
>https://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd
>_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>Auto-Generated Text: IPTeam awaiting response from PMC.
>
>
>--
>Configure CQmail: http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
>------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
>You are on the CC list for the CQ.
>_______________________________________________
>tools-pmc mailing list
>tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
>To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe
>from this list, visit
>https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
_______________________________________________
tools-pmc mailing list
tools-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-pmc
|
