[gdal-dev] Call for discussion on RFC 85: Policy regarding substantial code additions

[Rahkonen Jukka (MML)]

Hi,

Greg Troxel wrote:

> If that is meant to apply mainly to drivers with proprietary SDKs, it
> looks fine.   It's a little hard to tell which things apply to drivers
> that don't have proprietary dependencies.
I think that even drivers with no proprietary dependencies require a thorough understanding about what they do and how they work and for example what standards they try to implement. It could mean hours or days for a generic GDAL maintainer to make the first bug fix.

> For example:
> Drivers require a designated responsible contact.
> seems perhaps a bit much, perhaps not, for something that is actually Free Software.
The intention of the RFC, as I understand it, is to clarify that no new drivers will be accepted without a named maintainer. For a Free Software there is room to live also outside GDAL. 

> Besides proprietary SDKs being a problem because the users can't read them and fix bugs, they are also non-portable.
I belong to those users who can't read and fix even Free Software but depend on maintainers.

-Jukka Rahkonen-