Difference between revisions of "IHE Testing and Tools Committee Teleconference Minutes 2008-04-21"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
Chrisdcarr (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*** Eclipse does make allowance for "modules" that are distinct from "the Program" and that can be release under separate licensing terms | *** 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? | *** 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) | ||
+ | ** Difficult to determine whether additional restrictions of Eclipse license would pose an obstacle to contributors, but this does seem possible | ||
+ | * 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's Agreement=== | ===Contributor's Agreement=== |
Revision as of 10:15, 21 April 2008
Attendees
- Geert Claeys - Agfa
- Cor Loef - Philips
- David Monteau - INRIA
- Steve Moore - MIR
- Chris Carr - RSNA
- Didi Davis - HIMSS
- Joan McMillen - RSNA
Agenda
Licensing Terms for Gazelle Project
- 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 is more restrictive (or "viral") in that it requires all derivative versions ("additions" and "modifications") to be released under the same Eclipse license
- 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)
- Difficult to determine whether additional restrictions of Eclipse license would pose an obstacle to contributors, but this does seem possible
- 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's Agreement
David Monteau's draft agreements for:
Committee Governance
Membership Application
Inventory of Tools
Topics for Next Call
- April 28, 8:30 am CDT