[Board] The geotools license agenda item

[Geomatys.com]

Hello All,

> The background on the topic does not illuminate, communication with Apache Foundation and sis-dev to determine requirements before proceeding.

Jody there is a misunderstood from your part here. This is not a request done by SIS-dev to OSGEO, but by Martin Desruisseaux (the author of the code concerned) to relicense the code he wrote under Apache2. SIS-dev has nothing to do in that process.

This request is independant from you dual licence request and concern legal relationship between the author of the code and OSGEO.

Cheers,

Vincent

Vincent Heurteaux
GEOMATYS
vincent.heurteaux at geomatys.com
Tel. +33(0)6 42 92 29 28



Le 9 août 2012 à 01:43, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> a écrit :

> TLDR: The background on the topic does not illuminate, communication with Apache Foundation and sis-dev to determine requirements before proceeding.
> 
> I think the point was to make this about the OSGeo Foundation, code contribution agreements, and the foundation by-laws. There is a GeoTools proposal to address the dual license request at the community level, however this request was recently withdrawn.
> 
> You can review the proposal for some background reading, but as per your other agenda item this is not considered an unbiased source. It does however cite a few sections of the code contribution agreement and by-laws:
> - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Dual+License+Request
> 
> My best hope for clarity it to discuss this topic with apache sis-dev and determine what the Apache Foundation requires in order to proceed. Specifically the existing request to relicense may not be sufficient, we are waiting to find out.
> -- 
> Jody Garnett
> 
> On Thursday, 9 August 2012 at 7:41 AM, Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
> 
>> Not being involved at all in the geotools community, I've not followed the relicensing issue at all, and the recent discussions on the board list were both too long and presuppose some background on the issue I don't have.
>> 
>> Can someone please provide a nonpartisan summary of the issue we're being asked to address?
>> 
>> -mpg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Board mailing list
>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20120809/0a1b4641/attachment.htm>