[postgis-devel] A letter to the Postgis Developers and Packagers

[Bborie Park]

Assuming code is coming from lwgeom, the license should probably be GPL 2.0.

-bborie

On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 7:06 AM, <a.furieri at lqt.it> wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 15:13:20 +0200, Even Rouault wrote:
>
>> Refactoring the whole lwgeom as a fully independent library
>>> is a completely different task, and should never be confused
>>> with the other approach advocated by the initial post from
>>> Tuscany (A.Peri); future evolutions of lwgeom mainly are a
>>> PostGIS own internal affair, and have a very limited interest
>>> (if any) for any other GFOSS project.
>>> What really matters is a very limited and well defined
>>> subset: "superGEOS" and Topology.
>>>
>>
>> There's perhaps a better forum than here to ask that, but what will be the
>> license of this "superGEOS" ?
>>
>>
> Hi Even,
>
> this is a very good question.
> the initial post of Andrea Peri starting this thread simply stated:
> "with an open license similar to that of liblwgeom"
>
> I personally feel that adopting the LGPL should be the optimal
> solution mainly because LGPL already is the license adopted by
> GEOS itself and "superGEOS" would simply be a rather obvious
> GEOS complement.
> anyway this is just a personal preference of my own; I suppose
> that we should start a most serious discussion about the most
> appropriate licensing terms.
>
>
> bye Sandro
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20151024/e8ca8cf5/attachment.html>