[Incubator] Transfering Code Copyright - restart

[Frank Warmerdam]

Jody Garnett wrote:
> Jennifer Daehler wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Which issue was related to legal and is pending?  -- sorry to join the
>> conversation mid-stream. 
>>   
> GeoTools has a number of questions:
> - project (c) assignment to OSGEO

Jody / Jennifer,

I think one of the issues was a need for template copyright assignment
letters.  Also, who actually holds the copyright of GeoTools code now
is a somewhat vague since the code all indicates the "GeoTools PSC", though
such a thing does not legally exist and no proper assignment was ever
done.

I am thinking that we would try and get all substantial known contributors
to GeoTools, including all current members of the PSC and all module owners
to sign an assignment document assigning all their copyright holdings within
the GeoTools code base.

Realistically this won't truely be everyone with a copyright interest
in the code base, but it seems like the best we can do.  And I can't see
someone coming out of the woodwork in the future to complain since we
are still following the original intent of vesting the copyright in the
GeoTools PSC.

If some contributors explicitly refuse (as opposed to being uncontactable)
we might need to make some effort to retain them as copyright holders on
specific modules too.  For now this doesn't matter too much since we
aren't trying to change the license or anything that would require copyright
holder approval.  But it could complicate things in the future.

Does this seem reasonable?

> - project documentation license (this is where we are stuck, apparently 
> something that allows OSGEO to maintain the docs in good faith is what 
> is requested)

Is the question what is a good license to use for documentation?  OSGeo
has been trying to use the "Create Commons Attribution ShareAlike License"
for the wiki and web site.  I'm not well versed in any possible issues with
having GeoTools documentation just living under the LGPL.  Obviously some
of it's language would not apply well to documentation, but I don't know if
there is a big issue there.

> These seem to be the final items holding GeoTools back.
> 
> Here is the part of the thread that was obscure:
>>> A couple meetings ago we wanted to know how to peruse assign (c) of 
>>> the GeoTools codebase to the OSGEO foundation, my understanding was this
>>> had to be taken to the board for direction.

The part that had to go to the board was a statement of principle that the
board would defer to the GeoTools PSC for matters related code assigned to
the foundation on behalf of GeoTools.  I have an action item to prepare a
formal statement on this, and get it approved.  But please be assured that is
already the intent.   Hopefully this will not be a blocking issue if you
give the foundation board the benefit of the doubt for having good intentions.
If not, a statement of principle doesn't really help that much since the
board could just reverse it in the future.

The action item is still on me.

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org