On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 18:27 -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote: > Adrian Custer wrote: > > 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. > > Adrian, > > I'm not sure what you mean by a "formal structure". Upon completing > incubation > GeoTools would formally become a project of the foundation but as a legal > definition I'm not sure that it means very much. At some point I think it is > sufficient to say that a contribution to the GeoTools project is one that is > committed into the GeoTools SVN server as maintained by OSGeo and managed > by the GeoTools PSC, or code previously contributed to the informal GeoTools > project.
The problem is that right now 'Geotools' is mostly a concept. If there were a "GeoTools SVN server as maintained by OSGeo and managed by the GeoTools PSC" things would be *much* clearer. But right now, we are scattered and there's nothing really stopping me from proclaiming that I am the true and rightful heir of the Geotools project and going off to form my own branch, on my own server, with the Geotools logo and what not. The key problem, as I have just found out, is that describing a 'contribution to geotools' is quite hard. This could be a svn commit to refractions in canada (but not svn commits to the udig/ directory of the same repository), a binary upload to the geotools space of sourceforge (but not to any other space), a wiki edit to the GEOTOOLS, GEOT, and GEOTDOC spaces of confluence (but not ...) and so on. However, it would be easier to talk about the resources controlled on behalf of the Geotools project of OSGeo because it's very clear what that is. Hence my suggestion to set up the project first. > > I also get a little skittery every time you talk about OSGeo giving a > guarantee > for something. Yes, but what I want, you want as well... > One thing I would like to see done at some point is ensure that the foundation > is firmly bound to the rule that foundation held software will only ever be > offered under an OSI approved license. This is exactly what I was discussing and would take care of the biggest part of the issue. Have you done this? Is it part of your charter or a separate document? A separate rule I would hope to have (although you might persuade me to trust you on) would be an agreement to re-license geotools resources following the wishes of the steering committee (e.g. when they ask, only if they ask, and to the OSI license they request). By when could you 'firmly bound the foundation' to your rule? --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 Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
