That is great, indeed an ideal outcome, thank you for resolving this Niels. -- Jody Garnett
On May 16, 2022 at 5:31:22 AM, Niels Charlier <ni...@scitus.be> wrote: > Hello Jody, > > Timothy and I worked on this project together for the same organisation > (DOV); I believe they are the only ones who own the copyrights on the code. > > The problem has been completely resolved now; DOV has signed and submitted > the CLA for the modules that were contributed to geoserver. > > Kind Regards > > Niels > On 11/05/2022 01:44, Jody Garnett wrote: > > Niels the trouble is one of the contributors does not have a CLA on file > with OSGeo. We need to look up this individuals name so we can stop being > vague on this topic. > > @author Timothy De Bock - timothy.debock.git...@gmail.com > > So if you want you can update the headers to say (based on Timothy's > linked in profile): > > - (c) OSGeo and others > > > - (c) OSGeo and Geo Solutions; or > - (c) OSGeo and Department of RWO; or > - (c) OSGeo and Department of DOV > > > Thank you for your patience on this topic; I want to be clear as others > trying to figure this out the future can learn from this common example. > > So two options: > a) the code was written by you (does not seem correct), and you have > signed an OSGeo CLA (true), we bring it is as an extension like normal > b) the code was written by you and Timothy (or his employer, or on behalf > of a customer), we update the header to say "(c) OSGeo and others" and > include a LICENSE.md and NOTICE.md file in the extension folder > > Aside I think you intended to link to > https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-212 and > https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-211 > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On May 10, 2022 at 11:56:28 AM, Niels Charlier <ni...@scitus.be> wrote: > >> >> On 10/05/2022 11:24, Andrea Aime wrote: >> >> "found code" is for code that is license compatible, but for which we >> have no CLA on record, meaning we cannot mix it with other code that might >> be donated back to GeoTools or otherwise relicensed at a later stage. So >> the module needs to be labelled and isolated. >> >> Read carefully the "motivation" for the GSIP, and the proposal section as >> well: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-186#motivation >> >> So how would I in this particular case deal with these stipulations: >> >> - "The licence is compatible with the GeoServer licence, and clearly >> identified both in the source code, in the documentation of the module, and >> in the module release zip package": >> >> So can this just be geoserver license? There is no other license involved. >> >> - The headers from the original files are maintained, and not updated to >> indicate (c) OSGeo Foundation. >> >> But the headers already indicate this... Because the code was explicitly >> allowed to be donated to geoserver, I added the geoserver headers. There >> was never any other release of the code than this one. >> >> Regards >> >> Niels >> >
_______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
