Adrian Custer wrote: >> Okay if that is what we need to do then that is what we need to do. >> Perhaps we can sort this out a head of time >> using a batch process that genrates a file; with the filename followed >> by each person in the log history? >> - org.geotools.GeoTools jive, acuster, ..... >> > But if jive, acuster, ... have signed the letters, then we can > automatically strip their names. I was simply hoping to avoid everyone having to do that svn query file by file; if we generate the file once we can update it (with search "acuster " replace "") when we get your letter. > We only need the list of names of non-signees (those who retain (c) and > license OSGeo > the use of their code under the LGPL). Hence, it makes more sense to proceed > in order. > Okay so if they sign we remove the original author from the headers ... got it. For some reason I thought there name would still be on the list with the date they first contributed? > That's why we need to (1) pick a course of action (2) sign, seal, and > deliver (3) go after the headers. > > So we need to frame up a 'proposal' asking the community: > who is willing to sign (c) to OSGeo, if the most pick to go that route > who is willing to sign (c) to FSFeu, " > if they prefer [] the OSGeo route or [] the FSF route > I would rather that a core contributor (PMC/module maintainer) do this. > Okay; well based on the GeoTools meeting a couple weeks ago I started a proposal about assigning (c) to OSGeo; getting the PMC to vote on this is in keeping with their mandate of directing the project strategically (leaving day to day hacking up to module maintainers). I was only going to break out the FSFeu idea if the first proposal fails.
I can open up discussion to the user list; and if you want we can add a section with all the committers to the existing proposal. > Then > we have an irc where we formally decide on a route then > we sign and sign and sign then > we clean the headers out. > > The headers and clean up rules are the only thing we can be working on > concurrently and I'd just assume stay focused. > So should I break the above proposal into several parts as you outlined above? The way I see it we have a vote; and then a lot of work to do... 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
