Relax Martin, I am starting a discussion here and we should go through a round
of listening to what people think before considering any action.
Do not stress out over my few words ventured at the start of a conversation. As
indicated I can put this topic on the agenda for next meeting.
--
Jody
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)
On Sunday, 22 July 2012 at 6:23 PM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Hello Jody
>
> I'm understanding your concern. But I would also like to emphase that we
> are talking about code written at 95% by myself, Geomatys or IRD - large
> parts were written even before GeoTools 2 started -, that we are willing
> to trim the remaining 5% using Subversion history, at that - like
> everyone else - we granted copyright to OSGeo in the good faith that
> OSGeo would listen to the wishes of those who wrote the code.
>
> We asked for OSGeo incubation without success; this gave to Geotk a
> competitive disadvantage unrelated to the technical merits of each
> projects. We though that OSGeo could help building a community; the
> other point of view was that the community shall exist before a project
> get incubated. Apache is providing us a community, while Geotk could
> provide them code base. This looks like a win-win relationship for us.
> This can also be a win for the open source ecosystem, by increasing the
> spectrum of solutions available to the users. The impact on GeoTools is
> not necessarily bad, since projects don't have to write everything in
> the GIS world. GeoTools could delegate some services to projects who
> invested more in those areas, as you already do with JTS.
>
> In any case a pledge you to consider not only the interest of the
> GeoTools project, but also the interest of the open source ecosystem and
> for the developers who wish to give a new live to their own work.
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> Le 22/07/12 04:59, Jody Garnett a écrit :
> > I am not sure how I feel about this one Martin; the presence of a
> > GeoTools fork under a more permissive license seriously effects the
> > value proposition of GeoTools. Both for those who have contributed to
> > the project under the understanding of an LGPL license (and thus
> > expect any fixes made to the codebase to made available to "at least"
> > end users); and also with organisations we work with on both ends of
> > the license spectrum.
> >
> > thoughts:
> > - Perhaps this will be easier if we consider things on a case-by-case
> > basis (which apparently is your preference for working with Apache?)
> > - Personally I have also entertained the though of changing the
> > GeoTools license; in part to my exposure to other license models via
> > the eclipse foundation.
> >
> > I cannot see the value for the GeoTools project in making GeoTools 2.6
> > (even a fork) available under a more permissive license; unless
> > GeoTools also moved to a more permissive license. I think it would put
> > the project at too much of a disadvantage.
> >
> > What we can do is put this on the agenda for our next GeoTools
> > meeting. Thank you for approaching us on this matter; rather then
> > proceeding ahead in isolation. I also note your shortlist of modules,
> > which will help discussion.
> >
> > --
> > Jody Garnett
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
