I am okay with this; but I would ask that OpenGeo to retain copyright (it has provided influential for me in contract negotiations). Although I suppose on paper it looks like the difference between two foundations - so perhaps it does not matter?
With respect to branding - I view this as a failure of OSGeo (I expected more branding and identity out of the foundation - and they are making some strides towards this goal recently). Right now branding is a very weak story (and making the websites look similar is one way to fix it). I expect the member projects to set the direction - and GeoServer would not be alone in protecting its own identity. This would be an excellent discussion to have on the incubation list. The recent strides that OpenGeo have taken (both on the GeoServer website; and on the OpenGeo website) have had a very positive impact on the project. The only hesitation I have is that of the long term roadmap (of ideas looking for funding). Hesitation is too strong a word - that roadmap on the opengeo site is a very good move that the community here should follow. As such I would like to claw that back in the direction of the GeoServer website - but there is no reason for OpenGeo to change their site. In terms of a community Roadmap page we should make sure we offer a contact person for each idea so that opengeo, geosolutions and others can be contacted if a prospective customer or volunteer is interested in an idea). I would like to put curve support on there for example. Jody On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Justin Deoliveira<jdeol...@opengeo.org> wrote: > I think the original idea of what a project becoming an OSGEO project > would mean has turned out to be different in reality. I know that > originally a major argument against a project joining was that the > projects "identity" and branding would have to be sacrificed. But it > turns out that is not really the case and projects in the foundation > seem able to remain autonomous, and at the same time enjoy the benefits > of being part of the foundation. > > I think that argument was more or less the GeoServer argument. +1 from me. > > -Justin > > Andrea Aime wrote: >> Hi all, >> one of the points raised quite often at the Bolsena code >> sprint was that GeoServer is not part of OSGEO, and the >> thing is seen as odd and/or harmful for both entities. >> >> That is, people ask why GeoServer is not part of OSGEO >> and think that there is some "bad" reason for it, that >> OSGEO thinks GeoServer is not good or the opposite. >> >> Given our project control structure and the community >> around the project I think it would be beneficial if >> we joined. >> >> Without any rush, we can start the incubation and take >> our time thorough it. Imho it would be good for the >> GeoServer image, and also good for OSGEO as well. >> >> What do you think? >> Cheers >> Andrea >> > > > -- > Justin Deoliveira > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > Enterprise support for open source geospatial. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Geoserver-devel mailing list > Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
