Thanks Adrian, I do like the idea of breaking this into steps - one document for each purpose
If I understand you correctly we would be to set up "GeoTools" as an OSGeo project with all the legal bells and whistles. And then drag the code over as contributors sign on. Cheers, Jody > Hello all, > > While drafting possible agreements, the difficulty of defining what > 'Geotools' is now leads me to suggest that we separate out the idea of > transferring the Geotools project to OSGeo from the idea of each of us > granting OSGeo special rights to the code. > > This is a minor change which does not influence the choice we must make > to our overall strategy of copyright assignment, exclusive licensing, or > doing nothing. This minor change only involves the documents and > language we will use. > > > > The current documents which exist simply don't work. The agreements > cover all contributions to OSGeo but they can't accommodate a developer > making contributions to two different OSGeo projects with different > license/copyright strategies. (Note this is a problem other foundations > tend not to have). The documents also have other problems I have > detailed elsewhere. > > > > My previous strategy was to have a single contribution agreement > document which would serve two purposes: give OSGeo special rights and > get from OSGeo assurances that they would treat those rights wisely. To > do that in a single document we end up needing complex language to > define 'geotools the project', 'geotools the body of work' and > 'contributions'. The 'project' is 'that body of work that is ... and is > managed by the pmc...' The 'body of work' includes confluence, jira, > svn, maven repository, geotools.fr docs, sourceforge binaries. The > 'commits' are contributions to those servers, but only those that are > part of the 'body of work'. For example, we have to speak of commits to > sourceforge but only those related to Geotools, commits to the geotools > space of the refractions svn server, documentation transfers to > geotools.fr but only related to the 'project.' We can go this route but > it makes for a long, ugly document. > > > > My new proposal is to first create the 'project' as a formal structure > of OSGeo and then to define contributions as additions to that project. > > The first part will 'create' a formal Geotools project as that body of > work which is an effort fostered by OSGeo, managed by a well defined > PSC, with the control of the www.geotools.org domain name. Legally, we > need to establish that project as something that cannot be confused with > any other project. OSGeo would formally create this project as an effort > of its own and during this creation, OSGeo would guarantee to be a good > custodian no matter whether its role is as a regular licensee, an > exclusive licensee or a copyright holder. > > The second part could then define our contributions as those > specifically to the Geotools project. > > The result will be to have shorter, cleaner, clearer documents. > > Let's discuss this during tomorrow's meeting. > > --adrian > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
