<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Martin, (talking as a non-board
member),<br>
<br>
I'd be interested to hear who voted from the Geotools PSC, and
their reasons for voting as they did.<br>
Are you able to point at the IRC logs, or email conversation?
Alternatively invite the people with concerns to air their
opinions.<br>
<br>
I think this question is likely to become much bigger than just a
geotools relicense, as with the recent interest of Eclipse's
location arm, LocationTech, there will be other projects facing a
similar decision.<br>
<br>
On 27/07/2012 8:10 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5011C052.8030201@geomatys.fr" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Board<br>
<br>
As suggested, we posted our request on the GeoTools mailing list (<a
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=29572383">http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=29572383</a>).
The GeoTools PMC had a meeting Monday, which resulted in 2
"inclined yes" votes, 2 "inclined no" votes and one proposal to
re-license GeoTools too. We do not know yet the final GeoTools PMC
decision, neither we saw any reply to our request from the OSGeo
board. Consequently I would like to recall a few points, and make
one proposal (note: my willing is not to create contentious, but
to insist on open source spirit in a context where two projects
are facing strategic steps):<br>
<br>
<ol>
<li>We granted copyright to OSGeo, not to GeoTools.</li>
<li>When we granted copyright, we understood that OSGeo would
have the duty to behave according its charter, which is not to
protect the economical interests of some members or to favour
one particular project at the expense of an other project. </li>
<li>We were willing to trim every code not written by ourselves
(while of course we prefer not having to - see proposal
below).</li>
<li>GeoTools contains thousands of lines of code written by
ourselves - when we left, we were the authors of 40% of
GeoTools 2.6 code base.</li>
<li>If OSGeo requires GeoTools permission for re-licensing our
code, then conversely we assume that GeoTools needs our
agreement for re-licensing our above-cited work.<br>
</li>
</ol>
<br>
Considering that some peoples considered to re-license GeoTools as
part of their plan to join LocationTech (Eclipse), we would like
to reach an agreement around the following proposal: OSGeo allows
re-licensing of the full Geotoolkit.org code base to Apache 2,
including the work derived from other contributors in GeoTools 2.6
(as of 2008, it was 5% of lines of code in the "core" modules and
an undetermined percentage in the "pending" modules - we can
compute this number if it is considered necessary for reaching an
agreement). In return, we give our agreement for re-licensing any
work we committed on the GeoTools SVN (both OSGeo and
SourceForge), at any time in the history under any license that
the GeoTools PMC wishes. From an "amount of lines of code" point
of view, I don't think that GeoTools would be deserved by such
deal.<br>
<br>
Martin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 20/07/12 23:37, Cameron Shorter a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5009CFB1.8030608@gmail.com" type="cite">Martin,
board, <br>
(talking as a non-board member) <br>
<br>
I recommend that the course of action should be: <br>
<br>
1. Note that OSGeo's commitment is to support projects, and
support Open Source use for projects. <br>
2. Note that there are 2 projects with a vested interest in this
decision, GeoTools and Geotoolkit. <br>
3. Note that the board would in principle be in a position to
support Geotoolkit's request, as it is a request to use an Open
Source licence (which part of OSGeo's charter) <br>
4. However, before making a decision, the board, and/or Martin,
should approach the GeoTools community, and ask for comment, in
particular ask the GeoTools community if there are any grounds
for objection which might revolve around how GeoTools might be
adversely effected by such a license change. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">http://www.lisasoft.com</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>