[gdal-dev] Motion: adopt RFC 85: Policy regarding substantial code additions

[Andrew C Aitchison]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022, Howard Butler wrote:


>> On Jan 21, 2022, at 11:05 AM, Sean Gillies <sean.gillies at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1 from me.
>>
>> Howard, I really appreciate how you're reminding us that what
>> proprietary vendors want is for GDAL to help distribute their
>> software. Writing code that works is the easy part. Getting it onto
>> computers and getting people to use it is the hard part.
>
> +1
>
> Yes, I think the distinction that matters most is not just that
> proprietary vendors are leveraging GDAL's distribution channel. It's
> that they attempt to explicitly or inadvertently externalize the
> costs of maintaining that distribution channel on the GDAL project
> itself. An open source developer who tosses something over the wall
> that a bunch of people including other developers find useful is
> doing something different than a vendor who is throwing their binary
> SDK-driven codebase up and over. This RFC provides a the latter
> expectations they will need to meet if they go forward. IMO, they
> are not so onerous either.

Should we then change it from "substantion code additions" to
"code additions including (or perhaps interfacing to) non-open code" ?

-- 
Andrew C. Aitchison					Kendal, UK
 			andrew at aitchison.me.uk