Am 14.03.2016 um 22:16 schrieb David Smiley:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:37 PM Eike Stepper <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> (license), and to humbly ask that another PMC member "+1" the CQ. As an
aside -- I think this step ought to be
> eliminated for certain categories of licenses! Lets stop wasting
people's time on both sides.
I'll bring the topic up on the next Architecture Council call. Can you please
elaborate on the "certain categories of
licenses" part of your suggestion?
It's truly up to the Eclipse's IP Team,
IIRC., it wasn't Legal who wanted those +1's, it was the PMCs who wanted to stay up to date with what their projects are
going to use.
not to me. I would imagine that the more "viral" licenses (e.g. GPL) might require more IP team review than anything
else but since I don't do their job, I am not one to say. As a reviewer of other CQs in my PMC, that's really all I
care about.
So you're suggesting to have different processes depending on whether the license of the
library is "viral" or not?
Cheers
/Eike
----
http://www.esc-net.de
http://thegordian.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/eikestepper
_______________________________________________
incubation mailing list
[email protected]
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from
this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/incubation
