<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Cameron, Everyone<br>
<br>
[was: Re: Asking permission for re-licensing from LGPL to Apache
on the OSGeo board list]<br>
<br>
I am not a lawyer of course. I do work with some really good ones.
Like each of you, I do listen, learn, and try to pick up what I
can to educate myself.<br>
<br>
Stating it plainly, there are noteworthy firms that have
sufficient concerns about LGPL that they will strive to avoid it.
These are respected firms such as <a
href="http://bill.burkecentral.com/2010/05/19/apache-damaging-to-open-source/">Nokia</a>,
<a
href="http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/openlayers-dev/2012-March/008552.html">Lockheed
Martin</a>, <a
href="http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200508.mbox/%3COFA81BC35A.1032FA31-ON04257059.00629855-04257059.006452A2@us.ibm.com%3E">IBM</a>,
<a
href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/oracle_bea_gpl_lgpl_code_check/">Oracle</a>,
and many others.<br>
<br>
It's about friction. The IBM link above is a good one to review
and consider in this regard.<br>
<br>
The Eclipse Foundation, and by extension the <a
href="http://wiki.eclipse.org/LocationTech">LocationTech</a>
working group are designed carefully to minimize such friction
while simultaneously balancing benefits to projects. These
policies seem to be reasonably effective based on the success of
Eclipse software.<br>
<br>
The Eclipse Public License is a central part of reducing friction
while maintaining balance for the project's well being and
interests. It is a weak copyleft license. In short:<br>
<ol>
<li>If you modify EPL code and redistribute, you are obligated
to share the changes. </li>
<li>If you build on top of EPL software, your own software can
be licensed under your own license of choice (assuming no
license conflicts) </li>
<li>You can also re-license the finished product under a commercial
license of your choice<br>
</li>
</ol>
LocationTech also allows other business friendly licenses like
MIT, BSD, and Apache.<br>
<br>
In our license choices, IP policy, and other processes we're
trying to ensure things don't needlessly hinder projects from
being adopted by anyone and especially those people who might help
you make a living from it.<br>
<br>
Andrew<br>
<br>
On 07/26/2012 06:48 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5011C955.40504@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Andrew Ross,<br>
I think it would be very valuable for you to expand the forum of
your discussion about OSGeo/LocationTech, licences, and all
things come under that banner.<br>
In particular, I think it should be discussed on osgeo-discuss.<br>
One of the first questions that I think needs to be debated is
"Why Eclipse believes in the license it supports (and in
particular, why there are concerns with LGPL)"<br>
I think there are many developers (such as myself) who would
question their previous choice of LGPL, based upon further legal
advice you have mentioned to me.<br>
<br>
Andrew, you may wish to CC the osgeo discuss list in your reply
to this email.<br>
<br>
On 27/07/2012 8:10 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5011C052.8030201@geomatys.fr" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Board<br>
<br>
As suggested, we posted our request on the GeoTools mailing list
(<a moz-do-not-send="true" 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>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Board mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Board@lists.osgeo.org">Board@lists.osgeo.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Solutions Manager
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.lisasoft.com">http://www.lisasoft.com</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<b>Andrew Ross</b><br>
Director, Ecosystems<br>
<a href="http://eclipse.org">Eclipse Foundation</a><br>
Twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/42aross">@42aross</a><br>
Mobile: 1-613-614-5772<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>