Thanks for the background: It may be efficient to attend a bi-weekly geoserver meeting, as email is a laborious way to talk through these issues.
a) Your background really helps, thank you. c) For things coming into LGPL it is fine, we know how to handle public domain contributions. We just push back from government employees expecting to work this way all the time (as it means they require a constant drain on community time and cannot work independently). As a private individual you are very much in position to package up this elasticgeo code and contribute to the geotools project. - I think our geotools license page <https://docs.geotools.org/latest/userguide/welcome/license.html> is really clear that public domain is an exception to the normal state of things, making a note of modules that are odd <https://docs.geotools.org/latest/userguide/library/referencing/3d.html>, or source code <https://github.com/geotools/geotools/blob/d02ab14549a092d0af47f29d395b758ea56dda9d/modules/plugin/geotiff/PDNotice.txt> provided under public domain with notices <https://github.com/geotools/geotools/blob/d02ab14549a092d0af47f29d395b758ea56dda9d/modules/plugin/geotiff/17USC105.html> and javadocs <https://github.com/geotools/geotools/blob/d02ab14549a092d0af47f29d395b758ea56dda9d/modules/plugin/geotiff/src/main/java/org/geotools/gce/geotiff/package.html> . - If I was doing this today I would not place the documentation code under public domain (since it is not a license), but instead use a license like MIT. As for the value of a CLA - As noted in the discussion GeoServer is one of the few communities that take advantage of the additional abilities granted by a contribution license agreement. It gives the project leadership the ability to relicense code when donating "upstream" to the LGPL geotools project or BSD/EPL JTS Project. For communities that are strictly GPL a CLA does not in my opinion earn its keep. Indeed this was how I had advised policy for my previous employer: "free" GPL contributions are fine as is, permissive "open" contributions made use of a CLA. A CLA is in many ways just another open source license, the interesting thing is setting up an *asymmetric relationship* with the project maintainers having additional protections under the contributor license agreement than the "users" have under the distribution license agreement. The above is my opinion / experience, and I am learning more all the time. -- Jody Garnett On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 21:04, sjudeng <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello all, > > I was more involved than anyone in those "years" pursing the CLA for > ElasticGeo and so I hope you'll tolerate my long-winded comments here. > > As the maintainer of ElasticGeo I am trying again to contribute the > project as Elasticsearch community modules in GeoTools and (if successful) > GeoServer. Previous attempts have failed because of issues involving > getting a signed CLA. It's been slow because the CLA is a legal document > and it required signature by the U.S. Government. > > Now I am no longer a U.S. Government employee and am trying again since > all my contributions are covered under my OSGeo ICLA. But now the issue is > with requiring CLA signatures from the other ElasticGeo contributors, where > at least one of these would still be subject to the Government CLA > signature requirement. I am trying to get the project moved under > GeoTools/GeoServer for better maintenance, visibility and integration with > the developer and user communities built around those projects. ElasticGeo > has been stable but even light maintenance is more difficult for me as the > only current maintainer because I have moved on from the organization. As a > result the project is in danger of becoming fractured or orphaned despite > having a small but consistent community of users and contributors. > > Regarding the license and header discrepancy in the ElasticGeo repository, > the GeoTools component (gt-elasticsearch) is LGPL since it includes classes > like > https://github.com/ngageoint/elasticgeo/blob/master/gt-elasticsearch/src/main/java/mil/nga/giat/data/elasticsearch/FilterToElastic.java > that were based on GeoTools classes. Any new files that were created like > https://github.com/ngageoint/elasticgeo/blob/master/gt-elasticsearch/src/main/java/mil/nga/giat/data/elasticsearch/ElasticAggregation.java > have the public domain header since those parts were public domain. More > officially the ElasticGeo licensing is stated in the README as follows: > "Software source code previously released under an open source license and > then modified by NGA staff is considered a "joint work" (see 17 USC 101); > it is partially copyrighted, partially public domain, and as a whole is > protected by the copyrights of the non-government authors and must be > released according to the terms of the original open source license.". > > In the GeoTools MR fork all files have been updated with the OSGeo > copyright headers. The one thing I haven't been comfortable with is the > idea of rebasing out attribution to other contributors just because they > can't sign the CLA. I was hoping since ElasticGeo is an established open > source project released under LGPL (gt-elasticsearch) and GPL > (gs-elasticsearch) that the contributions could be recognized as having > satisfied the intent of the OSGeo CLA in this case. > > More generally though I do like the proposal in > https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186. My opinion is > certainly based on my experience. But one thing I wonder is if the CLA > process is something that other open source communities are continuing to > follow or if there have been any alternative processes that have been more > successful in protecting projects and members while also being as inclusive > as possible in a diverse and evolving community of open source developers. > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:39 AM Jody Garnett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks Andrea, sorry to be so careful with this stuff ... too much time >> as osgeo incubation chair. >> >> And as you can see that elasticgeo is exactly the kind of "mess" the US >> government makes trying to use public and open source licenses. >> >> I can try using the osgeo board to kick the NGA again but they are a >> train wreck at present. >> >> I should be clear that we as individuals can "fix" by copying the code >> and placing it into our repository; it is the government employees who >> cannot fix. On the bright side the public domain part means we can copy it >> into our code and put it under any license we want (including our >> GPL+Exception). >> -- >> Jody Garnett >> >> >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 08:06, Andrea Aime <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 5:03 PM Andrea Aime < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think the proposal is explicit about requiring module here... but I >>>> >>> >>> I've updated the page to be more explicit, can you check? Feel free to >>> update the wording directly to make it clearer >>> >>> Cheers >>> Andrea >>> >>> == >>> >>> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit >>> http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf >>> Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa >>> (LU) phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 >>> http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >>> ------------------------------------------------------- *Con >>> riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE >>> 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si >>> precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo >>> contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è >>> riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il >>> messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra >>> operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. >>> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >>> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by >>> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this >>> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended >>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please >>> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.* >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Geoserver-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel >> >
_______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
