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

Revision as of 11:46, 21 April 2008

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

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

Deferred to April 28 tcon

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

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 ===Membership Application===
+Draft will be presented as part of the governance discussion on April 28 tcon
 ===Inventory of Tools===