Martin Desruisseaux wrote: > 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 am at least going to write up the proposal this way; and then we can vote on the proposal. > 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... > (c) OSGeo is a lot more simple than (c) PMC :-) I don't mind either way on this one; my impression was the (c) history stays but I can be wrong ... > 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. >> Understood; I marked changing the license as out of scope for this proposal; it will be easier to relicense after we have sorted out the providence review (and at that point we could search and replace the LGPL code). From a biz standpoint I have carefully check with customers over the last year (ever since Java moved to GPL+Classpath). In each case they had to run off and ask a legal department; in the LGPL case they already knew the answer.
I would hold off on GPL+Classpath for at least another year; we want the legal departments of the world to figure out this new license and that will take a while yet. >> 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. > That sounds good. > 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. > I think the PMC may have to divide up the modules to get the job done; ask module maintainers only met with mixed success last time. > * SVN move. > How is that process going? Jody ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
