Just to tie up another loose end... I did follow up on this with both the Eclipse Foundation and the Software Freedom Conservancy and my conclusion was that the cost of having the lawyers review the paperwork outweighed the benefits.
We don't pay for the lawyers, but everything we have them do means they can't do something else for us or another SFC member. Pretty much the only benefit other than co-marketing was a guaranteed communications channel for Eclipse Foundation wide updates, but I discovered the same thing is available as an RSS feed. While I would have liked to show our support for the Eclipse Foundation, I couldn't really justify the hours the lawyers would spend. Tom On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Tom Morris <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll take responsibility for initiating the paperwork (it'll need to > get officially signed off by Linus and/or the SFC). > > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Bob Tarling <[email protected]> wrote: > >> However we are still growing in eclipse knowledge within the team. >> Should we select some specific developers to act as our representative >> in any dealings with the Eclipse Foundation? > > I'm not sure this is necessary. I think our only official reuqirement > as an associate member is that we "demonstrate support" for Eclipse > within a year or something correspondingly vague. That could probably > just be a press release, but since we're in our third year of doing > Eclipse integration work, I bet we already fulfill the requirement. > > I'm happy to volunteer for such a role, if it's necessary, but as I > said, I don't think it is. > > Tom > ------------------------------------------------------ http://argouml.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=450&dsMessageId=1403359 To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [[email protected]]. To be allowed to post to the list contact the mailing list moderator, email: [[email protected]]
