<div>
If asked I can go back and read Adrian's email, I am deeply thankful for the hard work he put into both this agreement, and into the incubation process in general.
</div><div><br></div><div>My understanding was placing the license as a board obligation was to allow the foundation to meet its goal of supporting open source licenses.</div><div><br></div><div>The foundation would justly be annoyed if a PSC relicensed an existing project under a closed source license. The same setup can occur if a contributor is free to set the license of a derived work. Indeed we would be placed in a very strange spot where the header would need to show OSGeo copyright, but the rest of the header could outline a license not in keeping with our goals.</div><div><br></div><div>In any case this is largely academic, the request was for an Apache License 2.0.</div><div><br></div><div>What remains is to carefully dot our i's and crossing our t's to prevent any further trouble. I will have to see how the board meeting turned out.</div>
<div><div>-- </div><div>Jody Garnett<br></div><div><br></div></div>
<p style="color: #A0A0A8;">On Friday, 10 August 2012 at 3:16 AM, Tim Schaub wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
<span><div><div><div>You misunderstood. I'm willing to do two things:</div><div><br></div><div>1) say I understand the spirit of the agreement based on reading Adrian's email</div><div>2) have the foundation cough up money for legal expertise if requested</div><div><br></div><div>Tim</div><div><br></div><div>On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Seven (aka Arnulf) <<a href="mailto:seven@arnulf.us">seven@arnulf.us</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>On 08/09/2012 05:32 PM, Tim Schaub wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Daniel Morissette</div><div><<a href="mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com">dmorissette@mapgears.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>On 12-08-09 10:21 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><br></div><div>On 12-08-09 07:15 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><br></div><div>Le 09/08/12 22:58, Jody Garnett a écrit :</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><br></div><div>I am afraid the very next line in section "V. Obligations of the</div><div>Foundation"</div><div>specially covers changing license as a board responsibility, made in</div><div>conjunction with the group governing the project. There are a couple of</div><div>restrictions, open source license, in accordance with the bylaws of the</div><div>Foundation etc…</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>That paragraph specifies the conditions under which the Foundation can</div><div>re-license; I don't read it as the contributor's conditions. Indeed, the</div><div>section title is "Obligations of the Foundation".</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Folks,</div><div><br></div><div>For reference, I also read it that way. I don't see any effort in the</div><div>agreement to restrict the contributors rights in this way. This is</div><div>basically a promise from the foundation to the contributor.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I also read it the same way.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Interesting. I read it more literally the first time.</div><div><br></div><div>"""</div><div>The Foundation hereby grants the Contributor the nonexclusive,</div><div>perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royaltyfree, license to use, copy,</div><div>prepare derivative works of, publicly display or perform, and</div><div>distribute the Submission.</div><div>"""</div><div><br></div><div>Sounds like broad permission to me. But I thought the missing</div><div>"relicensing" right (or other terms) was intentional.</div><div><br></div><div>Adrian's note to the Apache Foundation does clearly state that he</div><div>intended the contributor to retain (or be granted) the right to</div><div>relicense. I would have expected to see the word relicense or maybe</div><div>distribute under any terms or something.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201207.mbox/%3C9E3968A8-C23C-4E99-B3EF-9F1979D1BDF9%40jpl.nasa.gov%3E">http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201207.mbox/%3C9E3968A8-C23C-4E99-B3EF-9F1979D1BDF9%40jpl.nasa.gov%3E</a></div><div><br></div><div>I'm happy to say that the Board agrees that the Contributor agreement</div><div>offers broad rights to contributors. But I'll admit that I didn't</div><div>think it meant the right to relicense until reading Adrian's email.</div><div><br></div><div>Bottom line, none of us has the legal expertise. I'd be in favor of</div><div>using Foundation money to provide real expertise.</div><div><br></div><div>Tim</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I disagree. From my experience a lawyer can hammer both interpretations</div><div>from the text, it just depends on which direction you send him. And I</div><div>certainly have more legal expertise than most lawyers I had to do with</div><div>in the past five years. Especially when it comes to legal issues around</div><div>Open Source licenses and copyright in differen legislations. In short:</div><div>it would be a waste of money. But then, I am off the hook in a few days</div><div>and the board can then go where ever it deems right. :-)</div><div><br></div><div>To the situation at hand. Come on kids, what's going on? Can you not let</div><div>go? Not a little bit? None of you? We are doing Open Source here. We are</div><div>explicitly not propietary nitpickers. At least that was what I thought</div><div>we were when we started off. Maybe it is time to change?</div><div><br></div><div>I have so far still not seen any real-world argument proving that the</div><div>relicensing of code that has been produced be particular individuals</div><div>before the split of the projects will do any harm to anyone. It feels a</div><div>bit like Kindergarten (I admit that I dropped out of Kindergarte before</div><div>really getting anything done, I was probably socially incompatible).</div><div><br></div><div>Sorry to step on toes here, I know that some nerves are still blank</div><div>after this ling time - but seriously - is this what we care about?</div><div><br></div><div>Have fun,</div><div>Arnulf</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>--</div><div>Daniel Morissette</div><div><a href="http://www.mapgears.com">http://www.mapgears.com</a>/</div><div>Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>_______________________________________________</div><div>Board mailing list</div><div><a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a></div><div><a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>--</div><div>Seven of Nine</div><div><a href="http://arnulf.us/Seven">http://arnulf.us/Seven</a></div><div>Exploring Body, Space and Mind</div><div>_______________________________________________</div><div>Board mailing list</div><div><a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a></div><div><a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>-- </div><div>Tim Schaub</div><div>OpenGeo <a href="http://opengeo.org">http://opengeo.org</a>/</div><div>Expert service straight from the developers.</div><div>_______________________________________________</div><div>Board mailing list</div><div><a href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a></div><div><a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a></div></div></div></span>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br>
</div>