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

[Dan Little]

Oh good, that was what we were planning to do.  Right now many of the (c)'s have "GeoMOOSE.org".  I had originally intended on doing the formal work to create a formal organization to help structure and plan the funding for GeoMOOSE.  A few versions and two kids later that never materialized.  I was simply going to remove the "and GeoMOOSE.org" that permeates most of the license notifications.




>________________________________
> From: Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
>To: Dan Little <danlittle at yahoo.com> 
>Cc: Jim Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com>; "eadam at co.lincoln.or.us" <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>; Bob Basques <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>; "geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org" <geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org> 
>Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:13 AM
>Subject: Re: [Geomoose-users] Re: Just went through the incubation committee meeting log.
> 
>
>Oh Can I intervene here :-) 
>
>
>The incubation process really does not want you to change anything if we can avoid it. Only confirm what you are already doing and how your project ticks over.
>
>
>To repeat you holding (c) is fine. And having more than one (c) holder is also fine.
>-- 
>Jody Garnett
>
>
>
>On Thursday, 22 March 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dan Little wrote:
>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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/20120323/145481ec/attachment-0001.html