[fdo-internals] Re: [Incubator] Motion for FDO to graduate incubation

Daniel Morissette dmorissette at mapgears.com
Mon Jan 28 10:36:43 EST 2008

Arnulf Christl wrote:
> Hello,
> just to show that I really read the documents... :-)
> There is a minor typo in:
> "PSC members voting "+1" for a change request are expected to to stay 
> engaged and ensure the..."
> Just for the records - I am interested in how the initial PSC came into 
> being. Maybe it is just the old hen and egg question.
> Another minor typo in:
> http://fdo.osgeo.org/files/Individual%20Contributor%20Agreement%20-%20FDO.pdf 
> "You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your 
> present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation fro use 
> with the FDO Project."

I have filed a ticket about the typos:


With respect to the chicken and egg question, I don't remember myself 
how and when the PSC came into being. Hopefully Greg can add that info 
to the project's PSC page.

> It would be informative to see where PSC members are employed / self 
> employed.

Jeroen already asked for that info...

> It says that a new CLA has been put into place:
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/fdo-internals/2008-January/001651.html
> I should probably know - but could you point out what the changes to the 
> one were that we have agreed on? In the end this is a document from the 
> Foundation so we should know. (Maybe I missed that part but if I did 
> then we can be sure that others will have missed it too).

I believe the FDO Contributor Agreement was derived from the MapGuide 
one ... not sure what the changes were if any. I'll let Greg (and 
possibly Bob) comment on that.

> I don't want to start yet another round of painful lawyers talk but. 
> Those really long sentences are not exactly intelligible without a large 
> magnifying glass. As this will probably be the last chance to really 
> have a look at them, could you please translate the following section to 
> standard English.
> "Grant of Patent License." [...]
> "If any entity (a “Litigant”) institutes patent litigation against You 
> or any other entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a 
> lawsuit) alleging that your Contribution, or the Work to which you have 
> contributed, constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, 
> then any patent licenses granted to that Litigant under this Agreement 
> for that Contribution or Work shall terminate as of the date such 
> litigation is filed."
> Does this effectively mean that anybody litigating the Foundation or 
> contributor automatically loses the royalty free, free of charge patent 
> license that they received by using the software? Then this is probably 
> just a formal retribution that is required to fend off litigant's claims 
> on that software. Please correct me if I got this completely wrong.

I seem to remember a discussion about this but cannot track it down. 
IANAL so I will not venture to try to answer this question myself.

Daniel Morissette

More information about the fdo-internals mailing list