Get documents about "What is the origin of the code See Figures
Document Sample
Start What is the origin of the code?
Here See Figures 1 through 6 below
Written 100% by Written 100% by employees Written 100% by Submitting Re-Use of Eclipse Project or Re-Use of Non-
Submitting Committer Contributor (Non- Plug-in (Orbit excluded) or Eclipse Content
Everything Else
of the same employer as the
or Committer on same bundle that has undergone (see definitions This includes:
Submitting Committer: (a) Committer) and Submitted
Project under the a release review. on Page 3) 1) Code containing cryptography
under the supervision of the under the terms of the
supervision of the PMC 2) Non-Eclipse Content
PMC; and (b) where the Project License (typically
Figure 5
3) Code developed by Non-
employer has signed a EPL see definitions on Page
Figure 4 Committers, where workflow from
Figure 1 Member Committer 3)
Figure 2 or Figure 3 leads to
Agreement.
Figure 13
4) Initial Contributions to a Project
5) Re-use of Orbit components
Figure 2 yes
Figure 3
yes Figure 6
yes
yes
Includes all content, such
as XML, DTDs, fonts,
images, logos,
trademarks.
Do NOT submit to CVS/SVN yet. See Page 2
Fill out a Contribution
Questionnaire on Committer Tools
Confirm that the Contribution: Confirm that the Contribution: and include the IPBug reference
1. Contains No Cryptography 1. Contains No Cryptography under which the original approval
2. Is Developed from Scratch (without 2. Is Developed from Scratch (without was granted. This creates an
incorporating content from incorporating content from IPZilla Bug that will enable you to
elsewhere or relying on the elsewhere or relying on the monitor the Contribution and
intellectual property of others) – intellectual property of others) – discuss it with the EMO and
Contact the EMO if you aren’t sure. Contact the EMO if you aren’t sure. Community.
3. Is 100% Project License Code 3. Is 100% Project License Code
Figure 14
Figure 7 Figure 9
Yes to All
Yes to All A Member of your PMC must
No to Any vote +1 on the IPBug related to
the Contribution.
Figure 15
Contributor
Did it come from
must
Bugzilla? no
create a
Bugzilla The Foundation will approve
Figure 10
entry and the Contribution on the related
attach code. IPZilla Bug. The Contribution
is now recorded in IPZilla for
Figure 11 tracking purposes and will
yes
appear in your auto-generated
IP Log -
http://wiki.eclipse.org/Developm
ent_Resources/Automatic_IP_L
og
Confirm on Bugzilla that the
Contributor: (a) wrote 100% of
the code; (b) that they have the Figure 16
right to contribute the code to
Eclipse; and (c) the file header
contains the appropriate License
header.
Figure 11b
The activity described in
Figures 1 through 5
represent the majority of
Is it less than 250 development activity at
Go To:
lines of code and Eclipse.
“Everything Else” no
configuration files
(Figure 6)
and other source?
Figure 13
Figure 12
Definitions, Dependencies,
Moving Code to Eclipse, &
Distributing other Eclipse
yes
Create about.html (if required) & Projects, Plug-Ins or Bundles –
commit to CVS/SVN. Don’t forget to
record the contribution in your Project
See Page 3
IP Log!
Figure 8
Eclipse Foundation Inc., Due Diligence Process, v. 4.4, February, 2010 Page 1 of 3 Contact for Questions: emo-ip-team@eclipse.org
Available at: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
Everything Else
This includes:
1) Code containing cryptography
2) Non-Eclipse Content
3) Code developed by Non-
Committers, where workflow
from Figure 2 or Figure 3 leads Is the license
to Figure 13 yes
EPL?
4) Initial Contributions to a Project
5) Re-use of Orbit components Figure 17
Start Here Figure 6
no
Do NOT submit to CVS/SVN yet.
Fill out a Contribution
Questionnaire on Committer
Tools. This creates an IPZilla
Bug that will enable you to
monitor the Contribution and
Is the license approved
discuss it with the EMO and
for use within Eclipse?
Community.
If uncertain, contact
Figure 20
yes license@eclipse.org
Figure 19
Attach related source code to your IPBug
Figure 21
Make sure that you submit Contribution Questionnaire for EPL and non-
A Member of your PMC must EPL code separately, attaching the code to the related IPBug.
vote +1 on the IPBug Related to
Adding the following information to your Contribution Questionnaire will
the Contribution
help speed review:
Figure 22 •Is the use; binary or source For an unmodified binary distribution, the
•Is the use: in modified or unmodified form following licenses are considered approved
yes •Is this a standard binary distribution or are you sub setting?
as of the date of this Poster’s release:
•List all licenses that apply to the code
no •If there is a single author? (obtaining an email from the author indicating •Apache Software License 1.1
they wrote 100% of the code and attaching it to your IPBug will speed •Apache Software License 2.0
Foundation confirms that it has
review) •W3C Software License
received all necessary information •Is there a clear mechanism by which contributors to the project agreed •Common Public License Version 1.0
and code & if the package uses a to submit their code to the project under the license provided? •IBM Public License 1.0
license not previously used at •If there was a change in license, did those changing the license get the
Eclipse, informs the Board. •Mozilla Public License Version 1.1
permission of all of the original authors?
•If this code has been previously reviewed and approved for use in •Common Development and Distribution
Figure 23 Eclipse, identifying the bug that contains the prior approval, confirming License (CDDL) Version 1.0
that you are using the same related source code, and referencing that •BSD
bug will help speed review Be prepared for a
•MIT
Is your contribution eligible for parallel IP? delay in response
A contribution is eligible for parallel IP if: based on workload; no
planning ahead is Licenses that are not approved as of the date
(a) your project is Incubating and in
best. of this Poster’s release include:
compliance with the logo guidelines for
•GNU GPL 2.0
incubating projects. Conforming status is
no •GNU LGPL
indicated by the following icon: or
(b) In the case of mature projects, the
•Sun Binary Code License Agreement
contribution represents a minor change to a EMO completes Due
previously approved package. Diligence Want to use a source distribution instead of a
binary distribution? Want to distribute
Figure 28 modified code? Not certain of the answers?
Figure 24 Contact license@eclipse.org.
Approved Not approved
yes
Is the License approved for use If applicable,
within Eclipse (based on the Foundation
information provided by the IPBug is marked advises Committer
Committer) and there are no other with the keyword and Board of
difficulties apparent from the code “checkintocvs” Approval (ref
based on a high level review. See Figure 23)
comment on Figure 19. Figure 26
Figure 29 Foundation advises
Figure 25 Committer of Non-
Approval
Create about.html (if required) & commit to Figure 31
CVS/SVN. Don’t forget to record the contribution
in your Project IP Log! IP Due diligence will need
to be completed before the incubating project can
no ship anything labeled as a release candidate or
release. If Non-Approval
relates to
Figure 27 Incubating code
in CVS/SVN, code
must be removed.
Create about.html (if required) & commit to Figure 32
CVS/SVN. Don’t forget to record the contribution in
your Project IP Log!
Figure 30
Work with
PMC to
Examine
Figure 33 Alternatives
Eclipse Foundation Inc., Due Diligence Process, v. 4.4, February, 2010 Page 2 of 3 Contact for Questions: emo-ip-team@eclipse.org
Available at: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
Definitions:
“Project License” – your default Project license will be the EPL. Any other licensing strategy requires a unanimous vote
of the Eclipse Board of Directors.
“Non-Eclipse Content” – any code maintained on servers other than those of the Eclipse Foundation.
“Under Supervision of the PMC” – refers to general supervision; sufficient to ensure the code being submitted is in line
with the goals of the project from a technical standpoint. This level of supervision may vary by project. Determination
is to be made by the relevant PMC of the project.
“Submitting Committer” – An Eclipse committer on the project at the time of development. Code developed prior to
becoming an Eclipse committer requires due diligence review.
Third Party Dependencies:
Does your project work with or depend on other third party content?
Please consult the Eclipse Third Party Dependency Policy
http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse_Policy_and_Procedure_for_3rd_Party_Dependencies_Final.pdf
Moving Code to Eclipse:
Interested in moving code from somewhere else to Eclipse and maintaining it at Eclipse?
Contact emo@eclipse.org
Distributing Eclipse Projects, Plug-Ins & Bundles – Guidelines:
Release Candidate Distributions must not contain Non-Release Candidate (e.g. not “RC1” or final
release “1.0”) distributions from other Eclipse Projects as such releases may contain non-reviewed and
approved content.
Release Candidate Distributions may pre-req Non-Release Candidate (e.g. not “RC1” or final
release “1.0”) distributions from other Eclipse Projects provided the downstream consumer is made aware that the
content that is being pre-req'd may contain non-reviewed and approved content.
Non-Release Candidate Distributions may contain Non-Release Candidate (e.g. not “RC1” or final release
“1.0”) distributions from other Eclipse Projects.
Non-Release Candidate Distributions may pre-req Non-Release Candidate (e.g. not “RC1” or final
release “1.0”) distributions from other Eclipse Projects.
Simultaneous Release: All Projects participating in the Release Candidate for the simultaneous release must be
Release Candidate themselves. The above guidelines apply to any Project wishing to pre-req or incorporate other
Eclipse Projects.
Eclipse Foundation Inc., Due Diligence Process, v. 4.4, February, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Contact for Questions: emo-ip-team@eclipse.org
Available at: http://www.eclipse.org/legal/EclipseLegalProcessPoster.pdf
Related docs
