Re: Proposal for sponsored development of "Obliterate"

On Jul 28, 2009, at 4:55 AM, Julian Foad wrote:

> Can you give me a link to somewhere I can read about this [Eclipse]
> requirement
> for removal? I'm interested in discerning the extent to which they
> want to trace the banned code to WCs, mirror repositories, backups,
> and the like, and also
> what kind of audit trail they would prefer to see in (or outside) the
> repository. This is an aspect of "obliterate" that I have hardly gone
> into.

Some useful links. Look for "Parallel IP Process" in each:

http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/New_Commmitter_Handbook#Licenses.2C_Intellectual_Property_Due_Diligence.2C_and_other_Legal_Stuff

(or http://bit.ly/16dWHw)

http://eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf

http://eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf

(or http://bit.ly/seyVp)

http://wiki.eclipse.org/Development_Resources/HOWTO/Parallel_IP_Process
(or http://bit.ly/5LIve)

In the Eclipse case, I believe the answer to all your "how concerned
are they..." questions is "not in the slightest." They are, for
example, supremely happy with what CVS gives them, the ability to
centrally delete a tree of *,v files and let the dust fall where it
may.

-==-
Jack Repenning
Chief Technology Officer
CollabNet, Inc.
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94005
office: +1 650.228.2562
twitter: http://twitter.com/jrep

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2376332
Received on 2009-07-28 18:47:12 CEST