[fdo-internals] FDO Provenance Review

Greg Boone greg.boone at autodesk.com
Tue Oct 23 20:34:56 EDT 2007

I agree that including the Raster Test Data from unknown sources in the
distribution file is improper. Maybe we can come up with alternate test
data from known sources to replace the files in question....


-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Frank
Warmerdam (External)
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 7:59 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] FDO Provenance Review

Greg Boone wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have updated the FDO Provenance page at: 
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/FDO_Provenance_Review
> Can I get other members to validate that the results are accurate.
> is especially true when documenting which developers/organizations 
> contributed code to, or submitted code to, a respective FDO SVN


I have reviewed the document (it's long!) and I don't see any problems.

Working out the license/terms of the unit test data files may be
I can speak for a bunch of the raster files (many from USGS, DOD and
PCI GeoTIFF samples), but not all of course.

I will say I'm somewhat uncomfortable with having data of hard to
track sources in the source tarballs.

Best regards,
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo,

fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org

More information about the fdo-internals mailing list