Hey-
Not sure if this is well understood or has been covered here before.
I'm curious about the role of the foundation in licensing code for
distribution.
If an OSGeo project assigns copyright to OSGeo, I imagine it is OSGeo
that ultimately makes the decision on how to license the code for
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:12:43AM -0800, Tyler Mitchell wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:16:13 -0500
Frank Warmerdam warmer...@pobox.com wrote:
I know that in practice, this is probably the way things already
are. Why rock the boat? Why assign copyright to OSGeo in the
first place [2]?
Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote:
A few questions about copyright have come across my desk or
face-to-face at events this year. Frank, for the sake of
others on the list, could you give us an overview of what does it mean
to be an OSGeo project if OSGeo itself does not hold the copyright?
Hey-
Frank Warmerdam wrote:
Tim,
The PSC is considered to be a committee of the foundation, and in
particular
it's representative is considered to be an officer of the foundation
(corporation) giving them some ability to speak for the foundation legally.
Ok. I didn't get this from a read
Tim Schaub wrote:
Sounds like the process goes like this (if OSGeo holds copyright):
1) PSC votes on license
2) PSC chair advises OSGeo board
3) OSGeo board decides on license
Tim,
Actually the steps would be:
1) PSC votes on license
2) PSC chair declares motion passed, and directs the
Brian Russo wrote:
So to sum up the themes of this thread..
OSGeo really just acts as an administrative body within with projects
can have some legal existence, but effectively has no say on
day-to-day tasks involving projects, etc.
The actual direction of the projects sponsored by OSGeo is
