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 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

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. Pe

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

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

2012-07-27 Thread Adrian Custer
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 fr