<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Board<br>
<br>
As suggested, we posted our request on the GeoTools mailing list (<a
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>
</body>
</html>