On 1/19/11 16:49, Toni Menzel wrote:
thanks Richard - and congrats to your new family member btw!
Thanks.
Not sure about the legal entity thing - but is eclipse (not eclipesource) a legal entity??
Yes, I believe it is the "Eclipse Foundation", like Apache, no?
Ok, maybe the pretty non-formal participation mantra at ops4j conflicts with the TCK policies ? But then i really wonder - other than having an artificial money-making-cow - is it to keep the TCK under such restrictive constraints at all?
I won't get into all that...I'm just telling you how it is. :-)
Will contact the alliance anyway - lets see what we can get.
That's the only approach. -> richard
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Richard S. Hall <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 1/19/11 13:13, Richard S. Hall wrote: On 1/19/11 12:05, Toni Menzel wrote: Hi All, Reading this [1] anyone know what we need to do to get access to the OSGi TCK Set for OPS4J Projects ? [1] http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/rt-pmc/msg02203.html Simplest way is to become a Felix committer, since we've had access for quite some time now... Not sure how many OSGi specs are implemented by OPS4J, but trying contacting OSGi and see what they say. I should add, the tricky part is that it requires a licensing agreement to be signed and there is some expectation that the open source organization has some level of control over agents acting on its behalf, since the CT cannot be redistributed. At Apache, although not strictly required by the OSGi CT license, we ask committers to sign an NDA. So, a purely "open" approach doesn't really work. -> richard _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general -- *Toni Menzel - http://www.okidokiteam.com*
_______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
