Adrian Custer a écrit :
(about copyright assignment to OSGEO rathet than FSF):
> A. We need to confirm that we are going this route and address
> any residual concerns any of those who are willing to assign
> copyright may still have.
If anyone would like an other route than OSGEO, we need to ear him now...
I have one residual concern: Jody on IRC suggested to replace "(C) PMC" by "(C)
OSGEO" and keep other (C) holders. My understanding was that we would add "(C)
OSGEO" and remove all other (C) holders (at least every one who signed the
agreement). I though that simplifying the (C) holders was one reason for
copyright assigment to OSGEO, in order to facilitate relicensing among other
reasons...
Adrian gave us a "relicensing use case" later in his email:
> Since part of the intent of this work is to allow OSGeo to re-license
> the code one day, it might be worth mentioning the fact that Java itself
> has moved to GPL plus classpath exception and therefore we might need to
> follow that move someday.
> B. We need to decide on how we will treat future contributors.
> If we are planning to move SVN to OSGeo, do we grant access to
> that SVN only to those who have signed? If not, we need to be
> very clear about how a contributor needs to track their
> copyright over the files they touch.
I would said: SVN write access only to those who signed.
The other described by Adrian all sound good to me. I can volunter for the
following tasks:
* (C) header changes in metadata, referencing, coverage, coverageio,
widgets, epsg-*, go modules.
* SVN move.
Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
