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 23: | Line 23: | ||
** '''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 | ** '''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 | + | ===Contributor Agreements=== |
− | David Monteau's draft agreements for: | + | Reviewed David Monteau's INRIA draft agreements for: |
# [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Testing_and_Tools/Contributor%20licence%20Agreement%20corporate.doc Corporate Contributors] | # [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Testing_and_Tools/Contributor%20licence%20Agreement%20corporate.doc Corporate Contributors] | ||
# [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Testing_and_Tools/Contributor%20licence%20Agreement%20Entities.doc Other Entities] | # [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Testing_and_Tools/Contributor%20licence%20Agreement%20Entities.doc Other Entities] | ||
# [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Testing_and_Tools/Contributor%20licence%20Agreement%20Individual.doc Individuals] | # [ftp://ftp.ihe.net/Testing_and_Tools/Contributor%20licence%20Agreement%20Individual.doc 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 | ||
+ | * [http://www.apache.org/licenses/ 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=== | ===Committee Governance=== |
Revision as of 11:38, 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 Agreements
Reviewed David Monteau's INRIA draft agreements for:
- 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
Membership Application
Inventory of Tools
Topics for Next Call
- April 28, 8:30 am CDT