If the Google lawyer(s) could provide a list of some OS licences that are currently in favour for collaborative work, then there would be some context for discussion between the GeoTools PMC and the OSGeo Board.
Michael On 30 January 2013 12:26, Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for facilitating communication Frank - even for a disappointing > result. Indeed this latest feedback is more harsh than the previous "scope > of project not well defined". > > One of the reasons we have a contribution agreement is to help us reach out > to larger organisations such as Google. Last time we got this feedback was > from IBM, resulting in us pursuing the line of work that led to the current > contribution agreement. Indeed I think we started with apache contribution > agreement as a model and revised with the FSF Europe (as they were willing > to talk to us). > > If this agreement is not doing the job action is no-doubt required. > Especially as this contribution agreement is held up as a template for > other OSGeo projects to follow. > > However, this is very much a case where we are not lawyers and are not in > position to rework / reword an agreement on our own. We best bring this up > as an issue with the OSGeo board. > > I understand your contact does not want to provide specifics, in part as > that would be "free" advice. It is difficult to determine if the > recommendation of "apache agreement" is simply leverage an agreement that > has withstood courtroom use, or if there is anything "strategic" in our > agreement that raises alarm bells. > > -- > Jody Garnett > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan _______________________________________________ GeoTools-Devel mailing list GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
