IHE Testing and Tools Committee Teleconference Minutes 2008-04-21

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • Geert Claeys - Agfa
  • Cor Loef - Philips
  • David Monteau - INRIA
  • Steve Moore - MIR
  • Chris Carr - RSNA
  • Didi Davis - HIMSS
  • Joan McMillen - RSNA


Licensing Terms for Gazelle Project

  1. Apache 2.0 or Eclipse License?
  • Considered differences between two licenses:
    • Apache 2.0 is more "permissive" in the sense that it poses minimal restrictions on redistribution and distribution of derivative works: Requires attribution only
    • Eclipse license (EPL) is more restrictive (or "viral") in that it requires all derivative versions ("additions" and "modifications") to be released under the same Eclipse license ;
      • Advantages of EPL : prevent private forking; protect against patent infringement; allow non-derivative work to be distributed under any license type
      • Eclipse does make allowance for "modules" that are distinct from "the Program" and that can be release under separate licensing terms
      • Would introduce the problem of sorting out what contributions were the Program vs modules: Everything on INRIA forge constitutes the Program?
    • Even the "attribution only" model might prevent some contributors from putting their code on the forge (eg, NIST)
  • Voted on the current committee members' preference between the two proposed licenses:
    • Apache 2.0 was the preferred license selected (Apache 2.0: 2 votes; Eclipse: 1 vote; 3 abstentions)
    • Action: Chris will announce outcome to the committee list and invite any objections/alternatives before moving forward with contributor agreements, etc. based on the license

Contributor Agreements

Reviewed David Monteau's INRIA draft agreements for:

  1. Corporate Contributors
  2. Other Entities
  3. Individuals
  • Question whether it is essential to have separate agreements for corporations vs. other organizations: need to review the differences
  • Question about whether allowing individual contributors is advisable
    • Their contributions might have to be removed from the code base if there were a dispute with their emplyer
    • Individual contributors would not be eligible for membership on the Testing and Tools Committee: governance specifies that all committee members have to serve as representatives of IHE member organizations
  • Apache 2.0 licensing agreement includes its own contributor agreements: Assuming decision to go with Apache 2.0 license is confirmed, committee should consider using the Apache contributor agreements
  • Action: Committee should review INRIA agreements and compare with Apache 2.0 agreements

Committee Governance

Deferred to April 28 tcon

Membership Application

Draft will be presented as part of the governance discussion on April 28 tcon

Inventory of Tools

  • Current draft page is on the Wiki at Implementation
  • Chris Carr proposes adding new entries for other tool sets and providing more detailed information for each entry, including:
  1. Developer
  2. URL of authoritative source
  3. Licensing
  4. Development Platform
  5. Delivery Method (eg, desktop application, Web service)
  6. Description
  7. Profiles the tool tests
  • Review these information requirements with committee on April 28 tcon

Topics for Next Call

  1. April 28, 8:30 am CDT
  2. Agenda Items:
    1. Confirm selection of Apache 2.0 license
    2. Contributor agreements
    3. Testing and Tools Committee Governance
    4. Definition of committee membership
    5. Membership application
    6. Technical governance of contributors/contributions
    7. Test Tools Inventory

Testing and Tools Committee