Andrea, You are probably right, that the clause should be read to restrict claims against the written code not what can be done with future code. Your read seems more reasonable than mine and since Simone found other eyes who went through the same analysis perhaps we can be doubly reassured. That, then, resolves the concern over the field of use restriction issue.
If there is still an intent and proposal either to have the geotools build pull in imageio-ext or to integrate altered JAI code to geotools, then we still need to resolve the advertising clause issue since that affects all documentation to the project and anyone redistributing it. However, I no longer understand what is going on. Daniele, when I asked you for an update, it was because I don't understand anymore what you are proposing---things are changing by the hour. It sounds like you want to refactor your library, change its licensing, and make it an optional dependency of Geotools but also want to copy over some code from the library into geotools. If one of you could write up three sentences as to how the code next week will be different from the code last week, I would appreciate the Simone, the page you found at lt3xt was excellent---a good writeup of all the craziness that goes into affirming the legal standing of a project. Makes me wish geotools had something that good. --adrian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
