Difference between revisions of "IHE Testing and Tools Committee Teleconference Minutes 2008-04-21"

From IHE Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 36: Line 36:
  
 
===Committee Governance===
 
===Committee Governance===
 
+
Deferred to April 28 tcon
  
 
===Membership Application===
 
===Membership Application===

Revision as of 11:46, 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

  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 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:

  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

Inventory of Tools

Topics for Next Call

  1. April 28, 8:30 am CDT