[Geomoose-users] Re: Just went through the incubation committee meeting log.

[Dan Little]

The license is MIT.  I just wrote Eli a lengthy email about the (c) holder issue being me and GeoMOOSE.org.
I'm consulting with a few folks before proposing a solution.  In the mean time, I will work to post licenses in the files in which they are missing. (Doing that now...)




>________________________________
> From: Jim Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com>
>To: eadam at co.lincoln.or.us 
>Cc: Bob Basques <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>; "geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org" <geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org> 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:46 AM
>Subject: Re: [Geomoose-users] Re: Just went through the incubation committee meeting log.
> 
>
>On Mar 21, 2012, at 10:27 AM, Eli Adam wrote:
>
>>> 2) MIT based license
>>> 
>>> You are running your own license here
>>> (http://geomoose.org/info/license.html) as such do you need it recognised by
>>> OSI? Or is MIT based enough?
>>> 
>>> If you want we can ask the incubation committee - or you can just decide and
>>> tell us how it is :-)
>> 
>> Perhaps MIT 'based' is a misnomer.  A diff of
>> http://geomoose.org/info/license.html  and
>> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php produces:
>> 
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
>> +Copyright (c) 2009-2010, Dan “Ducky” Little & GeoMOOSE.org
>> 
>> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
>> a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
>> "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
>> without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
>> distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
>> permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
>> the following conditions:
>> 
>> This makes it look like it *is* MIT rather than MIT *based*.
>> 
>
>Dan and/or Bob correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the *based* part is a historical artifact from the 1.x series that had a City of St. Paul copyright which was similar to MIT.  We had wanted MIT (to match MapServer) but the city lawyers felt they needed to change something.  (It was a bit of a battle to convince them that creating an entirely new open source license would essentially defeat adoption and so MIT based was a compromise.)  Note: The 2.x series was written from scratch (primarily by Duck) after he left the city so this isn't an issue for 2.x.
>
>>> 
>>> 3) Um where is the source code? There is no link from your home page or
>>> download page - do you make a download of the source available for each
>>> release? Ah I found it by trial and error ...
>> 
>> Has been updated in trunk for a while.  Website is a snapshot
>> currently, will switch to auto-generation soon.
>> 
>> Thanks for the help, I think that Code Provenience is one of those
>> tasks that sounds worse than it is (and thus is avoided).
>> 
>> Eli
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geomoose-users mailing list
>> Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>
>_______________________________________________
>Geomoose-users mailing list
>Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-users/attachments/20120321/5ed68304/attachment.html