Versions Compared

Old Version 6

changes.mady.by.user Casey Cain

Saved on

compared with

New Version 7

changes.mady.by.user Daniel De La Rosa

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Date

TSC Meeting Zoom || TSC APAC Zoom || Meeting Recordings

...

X = Present | P = Proxy  (Indicate below table with @name for @name

TSC

Luis Gomez Palacios

x

Venkatrangan Govindarajan

x

Guillaume Lambert

x

Robert Varga


Anil Shashikumar Belur


Community Elected Roles:

Daniel De La Rosa (Release Manager)

x

Staff: Casey Cain

Others: Filip Čúzy (Deactivated) Manoj Chokka Navid Ghazisaidi oleksii.mozghovyi (Deactivated) Bartosz Górski

Agenda

  • Start the Recording
  • We will start by mentioning the project's Antitrust Policy, which you can find linked from the LF and project websites. The policy is important where multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, are participating in meetings. Please review and if you have any questions, please contact your company legal counsel. Members of the LF may contact Andrew Updegrove at the firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the LF.
  • Agenda Bashing, Roll Call, Action Items (all, 9:00-9:05 am)
  • Releases
    • Silicon code freeze / phosphorus
    • Al SR3 ready: Anil proposes 2 options: either proceed with releasing the existing AR #370 (as per vote: Aluminum SR3 Release Approval) or go with a new AR build #395 
  • TAC & SPC Updates
  • Marketing Update
  • TSC Grievance Tracking
  • General Topics
    • TSC special election
    • community meeting calendar
    • License update
      • Steve Winslow to speak to TSC on   
  • Any Other Topics

Minutes

Marketing Update

Release

  • Silicon code freeze.. TBD
  • phosphorus Schedule
  • Phosphorus Schedule
    • No objections to the proposal so we will request release plans from managed projects
  • Release manager election to happen soon by Casey Cain
  • Al SR3 ready: Anil proposes 2 options: either proceed with releasing the existing AR #370 (as per vote: Aluminum SR3 Release Approval) or go with a new AR build #395
    • no objection to go ahead for AR#370

TAC & SPC Update

...

  • TSC Special Election self-nomination period will end today at 5PM PT.
  • Community Meeting Calendar
    • Casey Cain noted that he looked at the usage logs on Zoom for the last 30 days to get a better 
  • License Update 
    • Steve Winslow to speak to TSC on  

    • Pursuant to OpenDaylight's technical charter [1] and its predecessors, prior contributions have been made to OpenDaylight under EPL-1.0. In order for the project to change its license, one of the following would likely need to be true:

      • either the new license needs to be "compatible" with the old license, so that the license change can be done within the scope of the rights previously granted to the project by contributors; OR

      • copyright holders of the prior contributions to the project would need to approve the relicensing under the new license.

    • Additionally, in either case, it would be necessary for the project to amend its IP policies in its technical charter to reflect the new license.

  • EPL-2.0:

    • For EPL-2.0, based on the Eclipse Foundation's view on this topic, a change from EPL-1.0 to EPL-2.0 should be permissible without needing explicit consent from all copyright holders. The Eclipse Foundation's FAQs at [2] explain their reasoning on this, based on the EPL-1.0 including a clause that essentially permits "upgrading" to newer versions of EPL released by the Eclipse Foundation.

    • So if the community wanted to change to EPL-2.0, according to the license steward's views, this should be possible without requiring consent from all existing copyright holders. The main precursor that would need to happen would be for ODL to formally amend its IP policy in its technical charter, to reflect that EPL-2.0 would be the project's license going forward. After that change, the code notices could be updated as described in the Eclipse FAQs.

    • Regarding why a change to EPL-2.0 may be helpful: the Eclipse Foundation has indicated that they updated the EPL to improve clarity and better reflect the norms for open source use and development today. A short highlight of some of the key changes is in their FAQs at [3]. In particular, I'd say that changing references from "modules" to "files" improves clarity quite a bit and makes it easier for users of EPL-2.0 code to understand what their obligations are.

  • Apache-2.0:

    • A change to Apache-2.0 would likely be more challenging. Since EPL-1.0 is understood to be a "weak copyleft" license, content contributed under EPL-1.0 presumably cannot be relicensed under Apache-2.0 without the consent of the copyright holders, e.g. the original contributors and/or their employers.

    • So to do this, you would likely need to obtain that consent -- or, for any holdouts, to remove their contributed content from the relicensed repo. I'm happy to talk through some of the operational ways to manage obtaining these consents. But be aware that, for a longstanding project like ODL, this is likely to be a significant undertaking -- and can end up being disruptive to the community, especially if there are participants who object to moving from the longstanding "weak copyleft" model of EPL to a more "permissive" Apache license. The project would want to carefully consider the likely effort, timing and impact before moving in this direction.

  • [1] https://www.opendaylight.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2018/01/ODL-Technical-Charter-LF-Projects-LLC-FINAL.pdf, see section 7(b)(i) and (b)(iii)

  • [2] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#epl-relicensing -- note that it would be the change to EPL-2.0 described in section 3.1 of the FAQs, not "EPL-2.0 with Secondary License" as described in 3.2

  • [3] https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-2.0/faq.php#h.a0eux401qus

...