Cameron: There's no reason a project can't play in both LT and OSGeo spheres, and indeed proposed a motion to that effect some months ago now.
However, it proved very controversial among some members of our community and I didn't feel it worth fighting at the time. Perhaps more pragmatic heads will prevail as LT gets further along. -mpg On Sep 10, 2012, at 8:42 AM, Andrew Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/08/2012 04:38 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: >> Andrew, I'm moving this conversation over to OSGeo Discuss list so that it >> has the opportunity for wider discussion. > Thank you Cameron. And hello everyone. >> >> Extracting from a conversation on the board email list ... >> >> On 09/09/12 00:25, Andrew Ross wrote: >>> If there is a close relationship between OSGeo & LocationTech, say where >>> there is a natural progression of projects into OSGeo and then to >>> LocationTech as they mature and look for corporate adoption & >>> contributions, the Steering Committee may see good value in financial >>> support. We are creating a program modelled after Friends of Eclipse which >>> enables individual sponsorship for a modest amount. This program is >>> designed to raise funds explicitly for the community. A close relationship >>> with OSGeo helping to direct those funds might make a lot of sense. >>> >>> These are things going on at LocationTech in any case. Maybe they make >>> sense to get involved with or perhaps not. I'm glad to discuss if there's >>> potential. >> >> Andrew, I'd like to suggest extending your thought to suggest that projects >> can be members of "OSGeo" AND "LocationTech" rather than OSGeo OR >> LocationTech. Any reason why that wouldn't work? >> > Yes, at this point it looks like this can work fine. > > A project needs to comply with governance/requirements be it those of OSGeo > or LocationTech. There is much overlap in this regard. In terms of > difference, LocationTech appears to have more rigour in terms of code > provenance, digging through prerequisites to detect potentially undesirable > licensing issues, trademark search, and such. The bill of good health that > results is seen as desirable by many companies when considering reuse & > investment in the project. > > Andrew > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
