[fdo-internals] FDO Incubation update

Greg Boone greg.boone at autodesk.com
Fri Jan 18 12:31:16 EST 2008

Hi All,

The more I think about the provider test data we have in our SVN, the more I believe that we have not put enough effort into determining what data we truly have the right to publish in our distribution files, or even store in our SVN. There seems to be multiple locations where we have determined that the data originates from public or governmental web sites, but that in and of itself does not give us permission to distribute in zip form, or to maintain a copy. I am now thinking that the provider test data should be removed from the SVN if the distribution rights are at all in question. This act would allow us in part to graduate incubation. Once incubation is complete and 3.3.0 is released, we can begin a piecemeal process of resubmitting test data that has been vetted more carefully.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Greg Boone

-----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: Monday, January 14, 2008 5:23 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] FDO Incubation update

Greg Boone wrote:
> 5- The Source code provenance review is at:
>     http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/FDO_Provenance_Review
>     I did several spot checks and everything seems fine.
>     I only have a few questions about test datasets:
>     5a- Providers/GDAL/TestData/pci_eg ... should there be a README.TXT
>         explaining provenance and license/redistribution terms?

Greg / Daniel,

I have added a README.TXT in this file reading:

The files included here were published by PCI as demo/sample data for
the GeoTIFF file format with the intention that they be usable for any
purpose (by me - Frank Warmerdam while an employee there).

They should be considered "public domain".

I have updated the Provenance Review doc appropriately.

I'll fill out the new contributor agreement and send it in.  I do think it
is desirable to have this aspect all "signed off" before a motion to
graduate incubation.

 >    What we may be missing from this list:
 >    - All contributors need to agree to project's license policy
 >      (sign contributor agreements)

Right, signing the contributor agreement addresses this point.

 >    - Is there an automated build or smoke test system? That should not
 >      be a blocker in my opinion, but http://buildbot.osgeo.org/ lists
 >      FDO as offline, what does that mean?
 > [GregBoone] Yes, there is an automated build/smoke test system in place, but
it is an internal process maintained by several developers in Ottawa/Toronto.
No buildbot mechanism exists at this time. OpenSource builds are generally run
weekly. We could put this on our plate as a deliverable once the 3.3.0 build is

There is already an FDO buildbot instance on buildbot.osgeo.org, created by
Mateusz, but it has fallen into disrepair.  I would suggest we get this
working as Mateusz has time rather than do something completely different.
I don't see this blocking graduation.

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, http://osgeo.org

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

More information about the fdo-internals mailing list