The PMC may push back on a CQ if the license is obviously a no-go.
However, the PMC is not expected to have expertise in licensing matters
and if there is any doubt, should just punt to the IP Team.
That is, of course, assuming that a CQ has technical merit.
Also, I will try and encourage a project to use a more recent version of
a library when a more recent version has already been approved by the IP
Team.
Wayne
On 14/03/16 05:16 PM, David Smiley wrote:
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, 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.
~ David
--
Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
_______________________________________________
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
--
Wayne Beaton
@waynebeaton
The Eclipse Foundation
EclipseCon NA 2016 <http://www.eclipsecon.org/na2015>
_______________________________________________
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
