On Fri, 21 Jan 2022, Howard Butler wrote:
On Jan 21, 2022, at 11:05 AM, Sean Gillies <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 from me.
Howard, I really appreciate how you're reminding us that what
proprietary vendors want is for GDAL to help distribute their
software. Writing code that works is the easy part. Getting it onto
computers and getting people to use it is the hard part.
+1
Yes, I think the distinction that matters most is not just that
proprietary vendors are leveraging GDAL's distribution channel. It's
that they attempt to explicitly or inadvertently externalize the
costs of maintaining that distribution channel on the GDAL project
itself. An open source developer who tosses something over the wall
that a bunch of people including other developers find useful is
doing something different than a vendor who is throwing their binary
SDK-driven codebase up and over. This RFC provides a the latter
expectations they will need to meet if they go forward. IMO, they
are not so onerous either.
Should we then change it from "substantion code additions" to
"code additions including (or perhaps interfacing to) non-open code" ?
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
