Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Gentle reminder to Nabble users

2012-07-27 Thread Mateusz Loskot
Hi,

This is an update to my previous message about using Nabble.
I asked Nabble to clarify some behaviour regarding some of the archives
we host at at Nabble. I've got it answered, so I updated the Nabble section:

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists#Nabble

M

On 13 July 2012 19:44, Mateusz Loskot mate...@loskot.net wrote:
 Folks,

 I have added short note to the wiki on how to start using Nabble [1]
 This is due to frequent notifications OSGeo Nabble admins have
 received lately, it is:

 
 Dear OSGeo Nabble Admin,

 X requested authorization to join the Z
 ...
 To accept this request, you should add this user to at least
 one group that has access to this area.
 

 where X is a person's name and Z is mailing list.

 Those who are not aware of how Nabble archive works with OSGeo mailing lists,
 please check the wiki page I updated [1], and comply please.

 [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists#Nabble

 Best regards,
 --
 Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net



-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


[OSGeo-Discuss] Seconding Board Member Nominations

2012-07-27 Thread Mateusz Loskot
Hi,

Can someone explain me what is this Seconded by
and Support by feature listed next to the Board nominations [1]?
Is this an element of any formal procedure or it's some kind of elevator pitch?

[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Member_Nominations_2012

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Seconding Board Member Nominations

2012-07-27 Thread Barry Rowlingson
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Mateusz Loskot mate...@loskot.net wrote:
 Hi,

 Can someone explain me what is this Seconded by
 and Support by feature listed next to the Board nominations [1]?
 Is this an element of any formal procedure or it's some kind of elevator 
 pitch?

 [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Member_Nominations_2012

According to:

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Election_Procedure

No seconder is required

The OSGeo election procedures seem a bit vague at the moment.
Comparing and contrasting with government, trade union, and even
student union elections that I've seen, which have pages and pages of
restrictions on canvassing and ballot mechanisms and publicity limits
and so on.

Last year's board member nominations just have the nomination
statement and the candidate's statement:

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Member_Nominations_2011

and not a long list of 'I like him/her too' messages, which are
probably unnecessary - the candidate should stand or fall on their
reputation and statement, not how many friends they seem to have! :)

Barry
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Seconding Board Member Nominations

2012-07-27 Thread Seven (aka Arnulf)
On 07/27/2012 10:06 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
 Hi,
 
 Can someone explain me what is this Seconded by
 and Support by feature listed next to the Board nominations [1]?
 Is this an element of any formal procedure or it's some kind of elevator 
 pitch?
 
 [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Member_Nominations_2012
 
 Best regards,

Nominees have to be nominated, hence the name. :-). The nominator is
simply the first to propose a nominee. Additionally each nominee should
get a second from another OSGeo member (Nota Bene, from anybody, not
just Charter Members).

The Support by feature is basically something that came into being on
it's own. People felt like expressing their support and it seemed a good
idea to collect them with the profile.

Additionally we encourage nominees to say something about their goals
themselves. This is probably the most important link, I named it
Acceptance and thoughts.

If you follow all the links in the links then the elevator pitch will
probably develop into a full CV and timeline of the nominee. The more
interest you have the more you will find out.

The Support by is not an official vote and is not counted into the
elections which will take place in roughly a week's time. It is just
support by a member who thinks that other's value their public support.
The elections themselves are limited to Charter Members.

Hope this helps,
Arnulf

-- 
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Boad of Director Nomination: Daniel Morissette

2012-07-27 Thread Anne Ghisla
On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:08:21 -0400
Mark Lucas mluca...@mac.com wrote:

 I would like to second the nomination for Daniel.  After having had
 the pleasure of working with him on the current board, I frankly
 can't imagine how we would function without him.  He is always a
 voice of reason and he has taken ownership of managing all of the
 financial tracking and planning that has made us successful.

Well said, Mark. Let me also second Daniel's nomination! 

Anne

 Mark
 
 
 On Jul 26, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Daniel Morissette
 dmorisse...@mapgears.com wrote:
 
  Thank you very much Arnulf for such a nice nomination. It would be
  hard for me to not accept after reading it.  :)
  
  I'd be happy to serve on the board for another term, presumably to
  continue the job started as treasurer in the last year (or to help
  transition it to someone else if there is a taker), and also and
  most importantly to continue to help bridge the gap between the
  local chapters communities and OSGeo Global. The growing number
  of local chapters and local events shows how important they are to
  help spread the OSGeo vision to local and non-English speaking
  communities.
  
  I am very happy to see a few nominees from outside North America
  already... please keep them coming as I think this is a great sign
  and can only help make OSGeo even more international. Some
  continents/regions are not represented yet in the list of nominees.
  It would be awesome of we had at least one candidate from each
  continent/region.
  
  Daniel
  
  On 12-07-25 1:18 PM, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
  Dear OSGeo Community, Charter Members,
  I want to nominate Daniel Morissette for the OSGeo board of
  directors.
  
  I have been working with Daniel for many years and he is one of
  the most trustworthy and consistently productive people I know. He
  has always proven to be highly sensitive to community related
  aspects and has an international outlook, combined with very good
  English skills. This makes him a good mediator between different
  regions and cultures, a regularly upcoming issue in our community.
  This would already make him an invaluable member of the board of
  directors. But this is not enough, on top of this he also tends to
  the irksome job of treasurer and has toiled through many
  down-to-earth tasks that an organization of our size requires to
  get done. He is also an integral part of the Franco-Canadian local
  community and a relentless contributor to the MapServer project.
  
  It would be silly to not squeeze some more out of him if he so
  friendly asks for it.
  
  Thank you,
  Arnulf
  
  
  
  -- 
  Daniel Morissette
  http://www.mapgears.com/
  Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000
  
  
  
  ___
  Discuss mailing list
  Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
  http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
 



-- 
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Aghisla


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Seconding Board Member Nominations

2012-07-27 Thread Mateusz Loskot
On 27 July 2012 10:32, Seven (aka Arnulf) se...@arnulf.us wrote:
 On 07/27/2012 10:06 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:

 Can someone explain me what is this Seconded by
 and Support by feature listed next to the Board nominations [1]?
 Is this an element of any formal procedure or it's some kind of elevator 
 pitch?

 [1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Member_Nominations_2012


 Nominees have to be nominated, hence the name. :-). The nominator is
 simply the first to propose a nominee. Additionally each nominee should
 get a second from another OSGeo member (Nota Bene, from anybody, not
 just Charter Members).

Arnulf,

It looks the seconding requirement is missing from the point #1 of the
procedure here,
isn't it?

http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Election_Procedure

Thank you for the enlightenment.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Mateusz Loskot
On 27 July 2012 05:55, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.com wrote:
 This is a really interesting debate. Reading the links provided it also
 appears to be a mixed bag about acceptance of LGPL of various firms and
 I'm also sure many of us can name firms that have no issue shipping LGPL
 components.

GPL is dying, of natural causes.

http://ostatic.com/blog/the-top-licenses-on-github

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Paolo Cavallini
Il 27/07/2012 12:45, Mateusz Loskot ha scritto:
 GPL is dying, of natural causes.
 http://ostatic.com/blog/the-top-licenses-on-github Best regards, 
is this true only on GH, or is it a general phenomenon?

-- 
Paolo Cavallini - Faunalia
www.faunalia.eu
Full contact details at www.faunalia.eu/pc
Nuovi corsi QGIS e PostGIS: http://www.faunalia.it/calendario

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Doug_Newcomb
Il 27/07/2012 12:45, Mateusz Loskot ha scritto:
 GPL is dying, of natural causes.
 http://ostatic.com/blog/the-top-licenses-on-github Best regards, 
is this true only on GH, or is it a general phenomenon?

Well, if you do a quick search for GPL on github, 
https://github.com/search?q=GPLrepo=langOverride=start_value=1type=Everythinglanguage=
, you have about 1572 repositories that match. 


Searching for MIT or GPL dual license 
,https://github.com/search?q=MIT+or+GPLrepo=langOverride=start_value=1type=Everythinglanguage=,
 
turns up 3475 repositories.

It's interesting that the most active projects on github are not GPL, but 
I don't think that signals the death of the GPL license. 

Doug


Doug Newcomb 
USFWS
Raleigh, NC
919-856-4520 ext. 14 doug_newc...@fws.gov
-
The opinions I express are my own and are not representative of the 
official policy of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or Dept. of the 
Interior.   Life is too short for undocumented, proprietary data formats.___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Mateusz Loskot
On 27 July 2012 11:47, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote:
 On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Mateusz Loskot mate...@loskot.net wrote:
 On 27 July 2012 05:55, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.com wrote:
 This is a really interesting debate. Reading the links provided it also
 appears to be a mixed bag about acceptance of LGPL of various firms and
 I'm also sure many of us can name firms that have no issue shipping LGPL
 components.

 GPL is dying, of natural causes.

 http://ostatic.com/blog/the-top-licenses-on-github

 Perhaps but do you think that github is representative?

I don't think a representative analysis is even possible in
case of software licensing preferences.

Unlike SourceForge, GitHub is a young platform and it's gaining popularity
among FOSS hackers rapidly. So, guided by simple assumption it is
very likely that a developer will choose GitHub for his new FOSS project,
I'm quite convinced these statistics show the current trend, the trend
of newly established FOSS projects regarding licensing preferences.

Certainly, you can't ignore sample of 2 million public repositories***
and 1 million users at GitHub.

*** It does not mean there are 2m distinct projects, of course.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


[OSGeo-Discuss] Board of Directors nomination: Anne Ghisla

2012-07-27 Thread Margherita Di Leo
Hi all,

We would like to nominate Anne Ghisla (from Italy) to the Board of
Directors.
Anne is very active within the OSGeo community. Among others, We would like
to mention some of her activities:

   -  OSGeo Google Summer of Code administrator in 2011 and 2012;


   -  Member of Italian chapter GFOSS.it since September 2007, follower of
   Francophone chapter too;


   -  Member of QGIS Release Team, Documentation Team and Ecology Toolbox
   Interest Group;


   -  GRASS GIS core developer;


   -  Co-founder of OSGeo Women Chapter.

Some of the above items highlight that Anne has a strong commitment to the
empowering of OSGeo, not only from a strict technnical point of view.
We know her personally and can say she's a very reliable and helpful
person. We really see her as an optimal candidate for the OSGeo Board of
Directors.
Currently she speaks several languages, such as Italian, French, Englishand a
bit of German. She has worked in South Africa for a while and participated
to several OSGeo meetups across Europe. Hence she has a quite international
background, that allows her to mediate among different points of view of
people coming from around the globe.
Her skills and experience could contribute to make OSGeo organisation more
international and diverse, in sync with the community.

Kindest regards,

Margherita Di Leo  Stefano Costa
on behalf of the Italian OSGeo Local Chapter



-- 
Dr. Margherita Di Leo
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Andrew Ross

On 07/27/2012 12:55 AM, Alex Mandel wrote:

3.You can also re-license the finished product under a commercial
license of your choice this seems to be the biggest difference with
LGPL. But there's also another big difference, and EPL program is
incompatible with all other OS licenses
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php#USEINANOTHER
So it's more restrictive than BSD, MIT, Apache, etc...

Alex,

[snipped to break out this particular thought]

This is best illustrated with a use case. GeoServer uses EPL code hosted 
at Eclipse today. GeoServer is licensed under the GPL. GPL is 
incompatible with the EPL since both clauses cannot be true at the same 
time. This was addressed by GeoServer issuing a GPL exception for the 
EPL software it consumed. So the choice whether GeoServer wanted to 
consume EPL code was theirs.


You're right though... BSD, MIT, Apache wouldn't have this issue - at 
the expense of not having the weak copyleft. Basically people can take 
the code and do what they wish with it.


A project can decide what makes the most sense for them. I'm guessing 
that projects that chose LGPL (or GPL for that matter) did so in part 
because of the copyleft.


Andrew
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Boad of Director Nomination: Daniel Morissette

2012-07-27 Thread Andrew Ross

On 07/27/2012 05:43 AM, Anne Ghisla wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:08:21 -0400
Mark Lucas mluca...@mac.com wrote:


I would like to second the nomination for Daniel.  After having had
the pleasure of working with him on the current board, I frankly
can't imagine how we would function without him.  He is always a
voice of reason and he has taken ownership of managing all of the
financial tracking and planning that has made us successful.

Well said, Mark. Let me also second Daniel's nomination!

Anne
Not that it's necessary, but I would also like to support Daniel's 
nomination. I've had the pleasure of working with Daniel as well and 
agree wholeheartedly with Mark  Arnulf.



Mark


On Jul 26, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Daniel Morissette
dmorisse...@mapgears.com wrote:


Thank you very much Arnulf for such a nice nomination. It would be
hard for me to not accept after reading it.  :)

I'd be happy to serve on the board for another term, presumably to
continue the job started as treasurer in the last year (or to help
transition it to someone else if there is a taker), and also and
most importantly to continue to help bridge the gap between the
local chapters communities and OSGeo Global. The growing number
of local chapters and local events shows how important they are to
help spread the OSGeo vision to local and non-English speaking
communities.

I am very happy to see a few nominees from outside North America
already... please keep them coming as I think this is a great sign
and can only help make OSGeo even more international. Some
continents/regions are not represented yet in the list of nominees.
It would be awesome of we had at least one candidate from each
continent/region.

Daniel

On 12-07-25 1:18 PM, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:

Dear OSGeo Community, Charter Members,
I want to nominate Daniel Morissette for the OSGeo board of
directors.

I have been working with Daniel for many years and he is one of
the most trustworthy and consistently productive people I know. He
has always proven to be highly sensitive to community related
aspects and has an international outlook, combined with very good
English skills. This makes him a good mediator between different
regions and cultures, a regularly upcoming issue in our community.
This would already make him an invaluable member of the board of
directors. But this is not enough, on top of this he also tends to
the irksome job of treasurer and has toiled through many
down-to-earth tasks that an organization of our size requires to
get done. He is also an integral part of the Franco-Canadian local
community and a relentless contributor to the MapServer project.

It would be silly to not squeeze some more out of him if he so
friendly asks for it.

Thank you,
Arnulf



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Mr. Puneet Kishor

On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:08 AM, Andrew Ross andrew.r...@eclipse.org wrote:

 BSD, MIT, Apache wouldn't have this issue - at the expense of not having the 
 weak copyleft. Basically people can take the code and do what they wish with 
 it.


+1


--
Puneet Kishor
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Landon Blake
FYI: I release all of the code for my projects under the GPL and LGPL,
and have no plans on switching for my projects. So the licenses aren't
dead quite yet. :]

I think there is a tradeoff in the licensing decision between the
greater adoption that comes with a weaker license, and the stricter
adherence to open source principles that come with a stronger
license. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html)

I'm not making a statement about which license is better for OSGeo
Projects, I'm just making a general statement. I personally feel the
principles in the GPL and LGPL are more important than wider adoption
for my projects. But I'm just a hobby programmer.

There is one more thing to think about before changing the license on
a project. There may be programmers that favor contributions to
projects licensed under the GPL/LGPL, and consider a project's license
when determining where to dedicate their resources. I know OSGeo has
the right to change the licensing, but I believe there should be a
very strong case for doing so. It is, to a certain extent, changing
the rules after the game has started.

Landon




On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Mr. Puneet Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:08 AM, Andrew Ross andrew.r...@eclipse.org wrote:

 BSD, MIT, Apache wouldn't have this issue - at the expense of not having the 
 weak copyleft. Basically people can take the code and do what they wish with 
 it.


 +1


 --
 Puneet Kishor
 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Seven (aka Arnulf)
On 07/27/2012 11:45 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
 On 27 July 2012 05:55, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.com wrote:
 This is a really interesting debate. Reading the links provided it also
 appears to be a mixed bag about acceptance of LGPL of various firms and
 I'm also sure many of us can name firms that have no issue shipping LGPL
 components.
 
 GPL is dying, of natural causes.
 
 http://ostatic.com/blog/the-top-licenses-on-github
 
 Best regards,

(I don't think that GPL is dying, it is still 70% on SourceForge last
time I checked)

The more interesting question is - what are the natural causes? To me
it seems that Open Source is just not being so much under pressure from
a FUD POV, it is wide and largely accepted making it much less prone to
being appropriated. Therefore maybe the whole concept of Copyleft is
just not that important any more?

Another interesting effect is the growing interest of other
organizations in geospatial software, currently mainly on the library
side of things. Current example is GeoTools and GeoToolKit and Eclipse
and Apache respectively. It seems that this is a natural result of the
commoditization of geospatial functions and features and their
dissemination into standard IT. In coming years we will see less and
less distinguishable and openly competing geospatial projects but more
and more geospatial tools become a regular part of software
distributions. We have already seen this happen in a way with GDAL/OGR
which is being used all over the place. Just like Oracle has a WMS
viewer built in installing PostgreSQL already has PostGIS - and may
eventually also ship with MapServer and FeatureServer (or whatever makes
the race) and there is no more need for a separate installation /
configuration. Not sure where this leads us and this is just off the top
of my head, but might be interesting to have a conversation about anyway.

Cheers,
Arnulf

-- 
Exploring Space, Time and Mind
http://arnulf.us
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Jody Garnett
Nobody has expressed interest in GeoTools and we are very happy where
we are with LGPL as a biz friendly license.

uDig is attempting an out reach to the Eclipse foundation, both as a
source of developer trained up in the Eclipse RCP framework which use
as our plugin system, and as we are comfortable with our connections
to the OSGeo community (by virtue of GeoTools involvement, LiveDVD
etc...)

Not sure what is up with Apache, anyone know?
--
Jody Garnett

On 28/07/2012, at 12:28 AM, Seven (aka Arnulf) se...@arnulf.us wrote:

 On 07/27/2012 11:45 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
 On 27 July 2012 05:55, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.com wrote:
 This is a really interesting debate. Reading the links provided it also
 appears to be a mixed bag about acceptance of LGPL of various firms and
 I'm also sure many of us can name firms that have no issue shipping LGPL
 components.

 GPL is dying, of natural causes.

 http://ostatic.com/blog/the-top-licenses-on-github

 Best regards,

 (I don't think that GPL is dying, it is still 70% on SourceForge last
 time I checked)

 The more interesting question is - what are the natural causes? To me
 it seems that Open Source is just not being so much under pressure from
 a FUD POV, it is wide and largely accepted making it much less prone to
 being appropriated. Therefore maybe the whole concept of Copyleft is
 just not that important any more?

 Another interesting effect is the growing interest of other
 organizations in geospatial software, currently mainly on the library
 side of things. Current example is GeoTools and GeoToolKit and Eclipse
 and Apache respectively. It seems that this is a natural result of the
 commoditization of geospatial functions and features and their
 dissemination into standard IT. In coming years we will see less and
 less distinguishable and openly competing geospatial projects but more
 and more geospatial tools become a regular part of software
 distributions. We have already seen this happen in a way with GDAL/OGR
 which is being used all over the place. Just like Oracle has a WMS
 viewer built in installing PostgreSQL already has PostGIS - and may
 eventually also ship with MapServer and FeatureServer (or whatever makes
 the race) and there is no more need for a separate installation /
 configuration. Not sure where this leads us and this is just off the top
 of my head, but might be interesting to have a conversation about anyway.

 Cheers,
 Arnulf

 --
 Exploring Space, Time and Mind
 http://arnulf.us
 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Mr. Puneet Kishor

On Jul 27, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Seven (aka Arnulf) se...@arnulf.us wrote:

 On 07/27/2012 11:45 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
 On 27 July 2012 05:55, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.com wrote:
 This is a really interesting debate. Reading the links provided it also
 appears to be a mixed bag about acceptance of LGPL of various firms and
 I'm also sure many of us can name firms that have no issue shipping LGPL
 components.
 
 GPL is dying, of natural causes.
 
 http://ostatic.com/blog/the-top-licenses-on-github
 
 Best regards,
 
 (I don't think that GPL is dying, it is still 70% on SourceForge last
 time I checked)
 ..


would also be interesting to rearrange that chart by --

- SLOC. Would 200 projects of 5 SLOC each under license A vs. one project of 
1000 SLOC under license B considered some kind of marker?

- adoption. Would 200 projects under license A adopted by a total of 500 
implementations vs. one project under license B adopted by 500,000 folks 
portend some other kind of trend?

Yes, an interesting and worthwhile conversation.



--
Puneet Kishor
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Mr. Puneet Kishor

On Jul 27, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Landon Blake sunburned.surve...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think there is a tradeoff in the licensing decision between the
 greater adoption that comes with a weaker license, and the stricter
 adherence to open source principles that come with a stronger
 license. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html)
 
 I'm not making a statement about which license is better for OSGeo
 Projects, I'm just making a general statement. I personally feel the
 principles in the GPL and LGPL are more important than wider adoption
 for my projects. But I'm just a hobby programmer.


Yes, choice of license is a personal one, and while we may disagree on it, we 
have to abide by the choices that others make.

Personally, I care enough about free and open access that I want to see as wide 
adoption as possible. And, that includes those who may want to take my work, 
modify it, and re-release the modifications under a more restrictive license. 
If that leads to wider adoption, and there is some empirical evidence it does, 
I am all for it. Which is why I tend to use CC0 -- that is, effectively in the 
Public Domain, reverted to CC-BY where PD is not possible or impractical.


--
Puneet Kishor
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Ian Turton
On 27 July 2012 15:50, Mr. Puneet Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Jul 27, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Landon Blake sunburned.surve...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  I think there is a tradeoff in the licensing decision between the
  greater adoption that comes with a weaker license, and the stricter
  adherence to open source principles that come with a stronger
  license. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html)
 
  I'm not making a statement about which license is better for OSGeo
  Projects, I'm just making a general statement. I personally feel the
  principles in the GPL and LGPL are more important than wider adoption
  for my projects. But I'm just a hobby programmer.


 Yes, choice of license is a personal one, and while we may disagree on it,
 we have to abide by the choices that others make.


Actually choice of licence may be imposed on you by employer or sponsoring
organisation - for example the deal at Leeds University (where GeoTools
grew up) was that we were supposed to sell the code for as much as possible
or we could give it away under the GPL (and later the LGPL). If  the
University couldn't make money then no one could. Added to confusion was
the funding bodies determination that they also owned everything and giving
the code away was the easiest option.

The only thing I hate more than licence discussions is meetings with the
lawyers.

Ian

-- 
Ian Turton
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Mr. Puneet Kishor

On Jul 27, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Ian Turton ijtur...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 27 July 2012 15:50, Mr. Puneet Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 On Jul 27, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Landon Blake sunburned.surve...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
 I think there is a tradeoff in the licensing decision between the
 greater adoption that comes with a weaker license, and the stricter
 adherence to open source principles that come with a stronger
 license. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html)
 
 I'm not making a statement about which license is better for OSGeo
 Projects, I'm just making a general statement. I personally feel the
 principles in the GPL and LGPL are more important than wider adoption
 for my projects. But I'm just a hobby programmer.
 
 
 Yes, choice of license is a personal one, and while we may disagree on it,
 we have to abide by the choices that others make.
 
 
 Actually choice of licence may be imposed on you by employer or sponsoring
 organisation -


Yes, of course. I wasn't bringing into discussion situations where I had no 
control. If my terms of hire or funding state something, I have to abide by 
that, and all this discussion is moot.


 ...
 
 The only thing I hate more than licence discussions is meetings with the
 lawyers.
 


Indeed. Which is why I short-circuit all license discussions in my personal 
domain by not having any license. Life is too short and precious, in my view, 
to encumber with these complications. I'd rather be having a cold beer.


--
Puneet Kishor

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Michael P. Gerlek
I hesitate to get into this discussion, but...

Puneet wrote:
 [...] I short-circuit all license discussions in my personal domain by
 not having any license. Life is too short and precious, in my view, to 
 encumber with 
 these complications.

Do you literally mean no license at all? That might be a mistake, if you're 
looking for others to adopt your code.

Having no license documentation in the code raises all sorts of red flags.  In 
my commercial or government work, I'd not allow use of any code whose 
provenance, author, and/or copyright status is at all unclear.
 
-mpg


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Mateusz Loskot
On 27 July 2012 15:27, Seven (aka Arnulf) se...@arnulf.us wrote:
 On 07/27/2012 11:45 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
 On 27 July 2012 05:55, Alex Mandel tech_...@wildintellect.com wrote:
 This is a really interesting debate. Reading the links provided it also
 appears to be a mixed bag about acceptance of LGPL of various firms and
 I'm also sure many of us can name firms that have no issue shipping LGPL
 components.

 GPL is dying, of natural causes.

 http://ostatic.com/blog/the-top-licenses-on-github

 Best regards,

 (I don't think that GPL is dying, it is still 70% on SourceForge last
 time I checked)

As I mentioned, SF.net hosts tons of old, obsolete and inactive projects.

 The more interesting question is - what are the natural causes?

IMO:
BSD, MIT, Boost...licenses are freer and this freedom is apparently
important for new projects and initiative, especially if the future
is unclear. Another important aspect is the simplicity: if I'm not a lawyer,
and I don't care about hiring one, but I'm not sure about the terms
(and future of my project), I go for simplest reasonable.
Finally, I do dare statement, that nowadays most of FOSS code is
written on request by companies or individual investors who pay
hard cash for most of lines of code written in FOSS projects.
The clientelle seems to prefer the freer freedom too.

Best regards,
-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Mr. Puneet Kishor

On Jul 27, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Michael P. Gerlek m...@flaxen.com wrote:

 I hesitate to get into this discussion, but...
 
 Puneet wrote:
 [...] I short-circuit all license discussions in my personal domain by
 not having any license. Life is too short and precious, in my view, to 
 encumber with 
 these complications.
 
 Do you literally mean no license at all? That might be a mistake, if you're 
 looking for others to adopt your code.
 


No, I don't mean no license at all. I mean CC0.


http://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/


 Having no license documentation in the code raises all sorts of red flags.  
 In my commercial or government work, I'd not allow use of any code whose 
 provenance, author, and/or copyright status is at all unclear.
 


Using CC0 makes my intent very clear.


--
Puneet Kishor

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Doug_Newcomb
I would have to echo that.  I do not see using code at work that does not 
have any licensing information attached.

Doug

Doug Newcomb 
USFWS
Raleigh, NC
919-856-4520 ext. 14 doug_newc...@fws.gov
-
The opinions I express are my own and are not representative of the 
official policy of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service or Dept. of the 
Interior.   Life is too short for undocumented, proprietary data formats.



Michael P. Gerlek m...@flaxen.com 
Sent by: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org
07/27/2012 02:01 PM
Please respond to
m...@flaxen.com


To
'Mr. Puneet Kishor' punk.k...@gmail.com, discuss@lists.osgeo.org
cc

Subject
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license






I hesitate to get into this discussion, but...

Puneet wrote:
 [...] I short-circuit all license discussions in my personal domain by
 not having any license. Life is too short and precious, in my view, to 
encumber with 
 these complications.

Do you literally mean no license at all? That might be a mistake, if 
you're looking for others to adopt your code.

Having no license documentation in the code raises all sorts of red flags. 
 In my commercial or government work, I'd not allow use of any code whose 
provenance, author, and/or copyright status is at all unclear.
 
-mpg


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The Geotools fork and current relicensing discussion [was Re: The importance of a project's license]

2012-07-27 Thread Jeff McKenna
On 12-07-27 3:09 PM, Adrian Custer wrote:
 
 [2] I personally find the failure to make Martin a charter member as one
 glaring indictment of OSGeo and its community, revealing the inwards
 looking favoritism and lack of exploration beyond. There are few people
 as passionate, knowledgeable, or productive as Martin about free
 geospatial software so the fact that OSGeo has not managed to pull in
 his energy reveals both that the community fails to include some great
 folk and that OSGeo does not actually manage to represent the interests
 of 'free geospatial software' in general.
 

I have worked with Martin several years now through the Benchmarking
exercises; I agree his passion and knowledge is top notch.  It is
unfortunate that he slipped through the cracks for Charter Membership,
and it would be my honor to nominate him (but we just missed the 2012
charter elections).  You can also nominate him, so, we are all to blame
here; it happens, we have so many talented people in the community.  My
honest apologies to Martin, and others that feel this way; we appreciate
your community involvement so much.

-jeff


-- 
Jeff McKenna
MapServer Consulting and Training Services
http://www.gatewaygeomatics.com/


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Mr. Puneet Kishor

On Jul 27, 2012, at 2:39 PM, doug_newc...@fws.gov wrote:

 I would have to echo that.  I do not see using code at work that does not 
 have any licensing information attached.



Agreed.


--
Puneet Kishor
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The Geotools fork and current relicensing discussion [was Re: The importance of a project's license]

2012-07-27 Thread Alex Mandel
On 07/27/2012 11:09 AM, Adrian Custer wrote:
 
 Third, the decision strikes me as between honoring the intent of
 contributors to Geotools 2.6 and honoring the desire of the Geotoolkit
 contributors to take forwards their code base and build a community
 after having been rejected by OSGeo. Personally, it feels wrong to have
 all of Geotools 2.6 relicensed from a *GPL style license to an APL or
 similarly permissive license. My personal motivations are very different
 in those two different environments. However, it also feels wrong to
 impose my strong personal preference in a way that blocks the progress
 of others since I want free software exactly so that others have the
 freedom to leverage my work. This is especially true given that the core
 code base of the two projects was overwhelmingly Martin's work, and that
 the new code base has diverged enormously from the time of the fork.
 

What licenses does the Apache Foundation accept for projects that join
it? Basically I'm wondering, is it a requirement to relicense in order
to join Apache? If so, which licenses are the options?

Thanks,
Alex
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Andrew Ross

Landon,

For what it's worth...

I eagerly read that link you provided. It represents one end of the 
spectrum for values and principles in terms of open source. I believe 
it's fair to say that end of the spectrum is fairly staunch and 
recognized by some as radical and even marginalizing.


I believe there's plenty of room in the world for people who believe 
strongly in such messages, but I do feel personally this type of dogma 
seems a bit out of date and probably no longer as necessary.


The opportunity is for projects  companies partner and work together in 
harmony. For projects that are interested, there's help available. For 
those that don't want it, that's OK too.


Andrew


On 07/27/2012 10:05 AM, Landon Blake wrote:

FYI: I release all of the code for my projects under the GPL and LGPL,
and have no plans on switching for my projects. So the licenses aren't
dead quite yet. :]

I think there is a tradeoff in the licensing decision between the
greater adoption that comes with a weaker license, and the stricter
adherence to open source principles that come with a stronger
license. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html)

I'm not making a statement about which license is better for OSGeo
Projects, I'm just making a general statement. I personally feel the
principles in the GPL and LGPL are more important than wider adoption
for my projects. But I'm just a hobby programmer.

There is one more thing to think about before changing the license on
a project. There may be programmers that favor contributions to
projects licensed under the GPL/LGPL, and consider a project's license
when determining where to dedicate their resources. I know OSGeo has
the right to change the licensing, but I believe there should be a
very strong case for doing so. It is, to a certain extent, changing
the rules after the game has started.

Landon




On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:22 AM, Mr. Puneet Kishor punk.k...@gmail.com wrote:

On Jul 27, 2012, at 9:08 AM, Andrew Ross andrew.r...@eclipse.org wrote:


BSD, MIT, Apache wouldn't have this issue - at the expense of not having the 
weak copyleft. Basically people can take the code and do what they wish with it.


+1


--
Puneet Kishor


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The Geotools fork and current relicensing discussion [was Re: The importance of a project's license]

2012-07-27 Thread Justin Deoliveira
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Adrian Custer acus...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hello everyone,



 On 7/27/12 12:55 AM, Alex Mandel wrote:

 This is a really interesting debate. Reading the links provided it also
 appears to be a mixed bag about acceptance of LGPL of various firms and
 I'm also sure many of us can name firms that have no issue shipping LGPL
 components.

 Aside from that though, reading about the Apache SIS project motivation
 and better understanding of why Geotools forked to begin with seem quite
 relevant. The first was easy to find, but does anyone have a good
 history of geotools v geotoolkit?



 The fork had *nothing* to do with licensing but was primarily motivated by
 governance issues and differences of opinion in project direction.

 Also note that the fork followed over a year of work attempting to
 reconcile differences of vision and governance, so that the fork, when it
 happened, was essentially 'friendly' in that it was based on a common
 agreement that two groups wanted to work in two different directions and
 that the struggle of working together was no longer worth the cost.

 At the core, the fork was motivated by different views for how to handle
 geospatial imagery: one group, including the original author and
 maintainer, had one architectural vision for the code and wanted to work in
 Java exclusively, the other group had a different architectural vision and
 ended up binding to C language libraries for the different image formats.

 However, there were a myriad of other issues. The groups differed in the
 consideration of the importance of working against a formally defined
 abstract API (the GeoAPI project) and of the importance of having this API
 aligned to published international standards from the International
 Organization for Standardization , ISO, and the Open Geospatial Consortium,
 OGC. The group differed in visions of the independence of the Geotools
 library from that of Geoserver including in the direction of development,
 in the schedule for releases, in support for new JAVA APIs, in the adoption
 of new versions of the JAVA runtime environment. Finally, there were
 philosophical differences in the approach towards accuracy that seemed due
 to differences in approach of engineers as compared to that of scientists.

 In other words, the fork was motivated by two groups wanting to work in
 different ways, on different things, towards different goals. The fork,
 then, reflects exactly the reasons we give each other the freedom to work
 with the code we create.

 Thanks Adrian. I find this to be a very accurate and unbiased description
of the actual history and chain of events except for the part about it
being a friendly fork. I don't intend to reignite another flame war so i
won't go into detail but in my opinion (and i am speaking as
an individual on the PMC, and not for the entire PMC) things were left
trying to resolve the technical issues and not in a decision that Martin
should fork the code base. Taking into consideration this and the many
events (both online and offline) that have occurred since the origin of
GeoToolkit i would certainly classify it as a hostile fork.


 As for the relicensing decision itself, here is my take.

 Note, that I am not unbiased in this issue [1], although I suspect my bias
 is more against OSGeo than for anyone in particular.

 First, the choice is only OSGeo's to make. The work that the Geotools
 community put into the copyright assignment focused explicitly on making
 OSGeo the custodian of these issues. In our minds at the time, the
 copyright assignment was designed for three reasons; first, to have legal
 documentation of the intent of a user to contribute, second, to have an
 advocate in the case that any lawsuits arose, and, third, to allow the code
 base to move past any legal problems that might arise with the general
 public license, such as unintended conflicts between the (l)GPL and other
 licenses. So while consulting with current Geotools members is elegant, it
 does not absolve the Board from the ethical responsibility for making its
 own decision.

 Second, the Board is not impartial in this matter. A first point of
 disparity, is that historically, OSGeo is tied closely to the Geoserver
 community, having many of those contributors as Charter Members and having
 board members with direct ties to that project. Conversely, OSGeo has never
 managed to pull in Martin Desruisseaux as a charter member [2]. A second
 point of disparity is that OSGeo denied Geotoolkit acceptance as an OSGeo
 project [*] which, in effect, blessed one side of the fork and not the
 other. Since there are financial and strategic issues involved in allowing
 Geotoolkit to join Apache and form another community, the history of
 OSGeo's relation to geotoolkit should make the board extra cautious to base
 their decision on a well founded reasoning rather than on the personal
 preferences of individuals.

 Third, the decision strikes 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread rburhum
As someone who has done several for-pay projects (both big and small) to
combine proprietary and foss4g code, I can give a summary from a set of
anecdotal evidence and trends that I have noticed from a US-based consultant
point of view.

From my experience, the adoption of an open source project obviously depends
a lot on the license and the *environment* it is going to be deployed on.
Let me explain.

When offering a solution to a customer, it is easy to convince them that
changes/enhancements to a particular component they are getting for free
should be released out back to the community. It takes 1 minute to convince
them of this. No friction there. What is much more difficult is to convince
them that *all* the code they have been building for sometime now, needs to
also be released under the same terms (think GPLv3). *That*, I can certainly
say that 99.99% of the time they feel really strongly against!

When consuming full-blown GPL-licensed code, the situation when somebody has
to also license their entire code base under the GPL depends on the
environment. Let me take the example of LGPL and full blown GPL (forget
about Affero GPLv3 for this discussion).

For server-side and desktop technologies, take the example where the
processes are running separate. Changing GPL code is effectively enhancing
that component I got for free, which they understand (they may not
understand in-proc or out-of-proc). From a practical stand-point, the
restrictions/obligations are similar to that of LGPL because the client's
code is separate from open source project's code, so adopting an open
source project under GPL or LGPL is of low friction.

For components that are running in-proc, then the license matters much more.
An LGPL licensed project still gives them the concept of I just need to
release the fixes that I make to the library I got for free, so it is an
easy-sell. GPL-licensed code goes beyond this, so every single customer I've
had where I offered to consume GPL-code in-proc said 'no' (except for one in
academia, but that was a special case).

For customers where I have built iOS apps for, it gets really really tricky.
iOS does not allow shared linking of code (it is all static linking), in
that scenario, LGPL becomes the new GPL. Some people argue that you can 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/459833/which-open-source-licenses-are-compatible-with-the-iphone-and-app-store
use a special provision of LGPL to be able to use LGPL-licensed  code in the
Apple App Store. But there is no legal precedent for that yet (and thus, as
of right now, it is a theoretical argument), so most businesses that respect
licenses (or don't want to run the risk) will stay away from it altogether.

For web development development, it is a different story and a much longer
discussion because of the various ways you can consume open source projects.

Now for MIT, Apache, and similar licenses, you don't have any of these
implications. It is much easier to convince somebody to consume a project of
this kind. Afterwards, you can always give arguments for why it is
beneficial to open source a generic component and, so far, I have never
encountered friction against this. The FileGDB and ArcObjects GDAL drivers
are examples of this.

As far as GitHub vs Sourceforge, I think it is hard to argue that any new
open source is far more likely to adopt GitHub vs any other repo kind out
there. The reasoning, besides the technological implications, are IMHO,
rooted in generational-gap arguments.

My two-cents,

- Ragi




--
View this message in context: 
http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/The-importance-of-a-project-s-license-tp4991223p4991456.html
Sent from the OSGeo Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board of Directors nomination: Anne Ghisla

2012-07-27 Thread Venkatesh Raghavan

On 2012/07/27 21:56, Margherita Di Leo wrote:

Hi all,

We would like to nominate Anne Ghisla (from Italy) to the Board of
Directors.

Great to see Anne as a nominee and also that nomination has been made on
behalf of the very active Italian Local Chapter.

I strongly support Anne's candidature.

Could be nice if other Local Chapter could follow suit.

Best

Venka

Anne is very active within the OSGeo community. Among others, We would like
to mention some of her activities:

-  OSGeo Google Summer of Code administrator in 2011 and 2012;


-  Member of Italian chapter GFOSS.it since September 2007, follower of
Francophone chapter too;


-  Member of QGIS Release Team, Documentation Team and Ecology Toolbox
Interest Group;


-  GRASS GIS core developer;


-  Co-founder of OSGeo Women Chapter.

Some of the above items highlight that Anne has a strong commitment to the
empowering of OSGeo, not only from a strict technnical point of view.
We know her personally and can say she's a very reliable and helpful
person. We really see her as an optimal candidate for the OSGeo Board of
Directors.
Currently she speaks several languages, such as Italian, French, Englishand a
bit of German. She has worked in South Africa for a while and participated
to several OSGeo meetups across Europe. Hence she has a quite international
background, that allows her to mediate among different points of view of
people coming from around the globe.
Her skills and experience could contribute to make OSGeo organisation more
international and diverse, in sync with the community.

Kindest regards,

Margherita Di Leo  Stefano Costa
on behalf of the Italian OSGeo Local Chapter





___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Andrew Ross
On 27 July 2012 18:43, Markus Neteler nete...@osgeo.org wrote:

 On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Andrew Ross andrew.r...@eclipse.org
 wrote:
 ...
  A project can decide what makes the most sense for them.

 Note that for long-term projects a license change
 is rather difficult to realize (especially if older contributors
 are no longer traceable..).

 Markus


Markus,

Agreed. This is one of many reasons why this discussion is so important,
even if we'd rather be drinking beer. ;-)

If you think you might ever consider re-licensing your project, then it's
not a bad idea to consider contribution agreements. They can make the
process to re-license, should you ever decide to, a lot less pain  effort.

I hope that it isn't lost in the discussion that it really isn't about a
given license winning or dying even if that's interesting to data junkies
like us. It's about the project's goals, and hopefully reducing friction
towards achieving them.


Andrew
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] The importance of a project's license

2012-07-27 Thread Mateusz Loskot
Ragi,
Thank you very much for sharing your experience.
You've saved me a lot of time

-- 
Mateusz Loskot
(Sent from phone, apology for any top-posting or broken quoting)
On 27 Jul 2012 21:11, rburhum r...@burhum.com wrote:

 As someone who has done several for-pay projects (both big and small) to
 combine proprietary and foss4g code, I can give a summary from a set of
 anecdotal evidence and trends that I have noticed from a US-based
 consultant
 point of view.

 From my experience, the adoption of an open source project obviously
 depends
 a lot on the license and the *environment* it is going to be deployed on.
 Let me explain.

 When offering a solution to a customer, it is easy to convince them that
 changes/enhancements to a particular component they are getting for free
 should be released out back to the community. It takes 1 minute to convince
 them of this. No friction there. What is much more difficult is to convince
 them that *all* the code they have been building for sometime now, needs to
 also be released under the same terms (think GPLv3). *That*, I can
 certainly
 say that 99.99% of the time they feel really strongly against!

 When consuming full-blown GPL-licensed code, the situation when somebody
 has
 to also license their entire code base under the GPL depends on the
 environment. Let me take the example of LGPL and full blown GPL (forget
 about Affero GPLv3 for this discussion).

 For server-side and desktop technologies, take the example where the
 processes are running separate. Changing GPL code is effectively enhancing
 that component I got for free, which they understand (they may not
 understand in-proc or out-of-proc). From a practical stand-point, the
 restrictions/obligations are similar to that of LGPL because the client's
 code is separate from open source project's code, so adopting an open
 source project under GPL or LGPL is of low friction.

 For components that are running in-proc, then the license matters much
 more.
 An LGPL licensed project still gives them the concept of I just need to
 release the fixes that I make to the library I got for free, so it is an
 easy-sell. GPL-licensed code goes beyond this, so every single customer
 I've
 had where I offered to consume GPL-code in-proc said 'no' (except for one
 in
 academia, but that was a special case).

 For customers where I have built iOS apps for, it gets really really
 tricky.
 iOS does not allow shared linking of code (it is all static linking), in
 that scenario, LGPL becomes the new GPL. Some people argue that you can

 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/459833/which-open-source-licenses-are-compatible-with-the-iphone-and-app-store
 use a special provision of LGPL to be able to use LGPL-licensed  code in
 the
 Apple App Store. But there is no legal precedent for that yet (and thus, as
 of right now, it is a theoretical argument), so most businesses that
 respect
 licenses (or don't want to run the risk) will stay away from it altogether.

 For web development development, it is a different story and a much longer
 discussion because of the various ways you can consume open source
 projects.

 Now for MIT, Apache, and similar licenses, you don't have any of these
 implications. It is much easier to convince somebody to consume a project
 of
 this kind. Afterwards, you can always give arguments for why it is
 beneficial to open source a generic component and, so far, I have never
 encountered friction against this. The FileGDB and ArcObjects GDAL drivers
 are examples of this.

 As far as GitHub vs Sourceforge, I think it is hard to argue that any new
 open source is far more likely to adopt GitHub vs any other repo kind out
 there. The reasoning, besides the technological implications, are IMHO,
 rooted in generational-gap arguments.

 My two-cents,

 - Ragi




 --
 View this message in context:
 http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/The-importance-of-a-project-s-license-tp4991223p4991456.html
 Sent from the OSGeo Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
 ___
 Discuss mailing list
 Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
 http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss