[Geomoose-users] Re: Just went through the incubation committee meeting log.

Dan Little danlittle at yahoo.com
Fri Mar 23 14:44:06 EDT 2012


Saves me work...




>________________________________
> From: Bob Basques <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>
>To: Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>; Dan Little <danlittle at yahoo.com> 
>Cc: "eadam at co.lincoln.or.us" <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>; Jim Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com>; "geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org" <geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org> 
>Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 9:12 AM
>Subject: Re: [Geomoose-users] Re: Just went through the incubation committee meeting log.
> 
>
>If it's no problem to leave it in, I think it should be left in.   Who know what might develop in the future, and it doesn't seem to mitigate anything OSGEO wise. 
>
>bobb 
>
>
>
>>>> Dan Little <danlittle at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Oh good, that was what we were planning to do.  Right now many of the (c)'s have "GeoMOOSE.org".  I had originally intended on doing the formal work to create a formal organization to help structure and plan the funding for GeoMOOSE.  A few versions and two kids later that never materialized.  I was simply going to remove the "and GeoMOOSE.org" that permeates most of the license notifications.
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
>>To: Dan Little <danlittle at yahoo.com>
>>Cc: Jim Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com>; "eadam at co.lincoln.or.us" <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>; Bob Basques <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>; "geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org" <geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:13 AM
>>Subject: Re: [Geomoose-users] Re: Just went through the incubation committee meeting log.
>>
>>
>>
>>Oh Can I intervene here :-) 
>>
>>
>>The incubation process really does not want you to change anything if we can avoid it. Only confirm what you are already doing and how your project ticks over. 
>>
>>
>>To repeat you holding (c) is fine. And having more than one (c) holder is also fine. 
>>--  
>>Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dan Little wrote: 
>>The license is MIT.  I just wrote Eli a lengthy email about the (c) holder issue being me and GeoMOOSE.org. 
>>>
>>>I'm consulting with a few folks before proposing a solution.  In the mean time, I will work to post licenses in the files in which they are missing. (Doing that now...)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>________________________________
>>>> From: Jim Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com>
>>>>To: eadam at co.lincoln.or.us
>>>>Cc: Bob Basques <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>; "geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org" <geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:46 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: [Geomoose-users] Re: Just went through the incubation committee meeting log.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Mar 21, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Eli Adam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> 2) MIT based license
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are running your own license here
>>>>>> (http://geomoose.org/info/license.html) as such do you need it recognised by
>>>>>> OSI? Or is MIT based enough?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want we can ask the incubation committee - or you can just decide and
>>>>>> tell us how it is :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps MIT 'based' is a misnomer.  A diff of
>>>>> http://geomoose.org/info/license.html  and
>>>>> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php produces:
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>>>>> -Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
>>>>> +Copyright (c) 2009-2010, Dan “Ducky” Little & GeoMOOSE.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
>>>>> a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
>>>>> "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
>>>>> without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
>>>>> distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
>>>>> permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
>>>>> the following conditions:
>>>>>
>>>>> This makes it look like it *is* MIT rather than MIT *based*.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dan and/or Bob correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the *based* part is a historical artifact from the 1.x series that had a City of St. Paul copyright which was similar to MIT.  We had wanted MIT (to match MapServer) but the city lawyers felt they needed to change something.  (It was a bit of a battle to convince them that creating an entirely new open source license would essentially defeat adoption and so MIT based was a compromise.)  Note: The 2.x series was written from scratch (primarily by Duck) after he left the city so this isn't an issue for 2.x.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3) Um where is the source code? There is no link from your home page or
>>>>>> download page - do you make a download of the source available for each
>>>>>> release? Ah I found it by trial and error ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Has been updated in trunk for a while.  Website is a snapshot
>>>>> currently, will switch to auto-generation soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the help, I think that Code Provenience is one of those
>>>>> tasks that sounds worse than it is (and thus is avoided).
>>>>>
>>>>> Eli
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Geomoose-users mailing list
>>>>> Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Geomoose-users mailing list
>>>>Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________ 
>>>Geomoose-users mailing list 
>>>Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org 
>>>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-users/attachments/20120323/062f82cf/attachment.html


More information about the Geomoose-users mailing list