[Incubator] Motion: deegree incubation graduation

[Markus Schneider]

Hi Cameron,

thanks for pointing out the issues. Please see the comments below.

Cameron Shorter wrote:

> Comments:
> * Please remove TBD's from the following page:
> http://wiki.deegree.org/deegreeWiki/StructuresAndProcedures

Agreed. This has to be done, but has been postponed, because we thought
it'd be better not to change documentation while others review the artefacts.

Responding to Arnulf's question for improvements in the incubation process: Maybe the guidelines could be clarified
here. Is it favored to update the incubation artefacts during an ongoing review / motion of the incubation committee?

> Code Review:
> * This has comments which include:
> "As far as we remember, Wolfgang Baer allowed to put this code under the
> LGPL. TODO: confirm this".
> http://wiki.deegree.org/deegreeWiki/OSGeoIncubationCodeProvenanceBase
> 
> I'm afraid this would not placate a lawyer who has been asked to check
> whether this code can be used for the project or not.
> 
> I'd like to see a description about how this issue is planned to be
> solved, or whether it has been decided to ignore the issue and only
> re-visit if someone challenges the project.

You're right, there is still one unresolved issue in the code review. There had been an email conversation between
Wolfgang Baer and the deegree developers that allows us to put the code under the LGPL, but we were unable to find it,
because this was several years ago.

We sent a new email to Wolfgang Baer recently and are waiting for a renewed confirmation.

> * There are also some Red crosses in the code review at:
> http://wiki.deegree.org/deegreeWiki/OSGeoIncubationCodeProvenanceReviewReport
> 
> I would not consider this code review complete until there is an
> explanation as to why these red crosses are not a problem. At the
> moment, I'd assume that there is a problem.

These two crosses are in the library/component review and refer to third-party JARs for which the license situation
could be a problem:

1. lib/postgis/postgis-1.3.3.jar: We were unsure about the license of this JDBC driver extension, because PostGIS is
generally GPL-licensed. However, we just learned that the JDBC driver is LGPL-licensed. Therefore we can simply remove
this cross.
2. /lib/mysql/mysql-connector-java-5.1.7-bin.jar: We don't have any build-dependencies on this driver and therefore will
remove it from the repository and the default build-process.

As you will have noticed, there are some question marks in the list of libraries as well. Here, we still need to check
if the licenses could interfere with:

a) deegree's LGPL status
b) the right to provide them in deegree's SVN repository

Our plan to remove the question marks is to search legal advice from the FSF. For every library that violates a) or b),
we will find a way to remove it from deegree's requirements.

> ----
> And finally, I'd expect the committer guidelines to be finalised before
> OSGeo incubation is complete:
> 
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Deegree_Incubation_Status
> 
> Are Committer Responsibilities Guidelines
> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php?title=Committer_Responsibilities_Guidelines&action=edit&redlink=1>
> covering legal issues in place?

Is this section in our committer guidelines document not sufficient?

http://wiki.deegree.org/deegreeWiki/deegreeCommitterGuidelines#Legal

Copy:

--------------------
Committers are the front line gatekeepers to keep the code base clear of improperly contributed code. It is important to
the deegree users, developers and the OSGeo foundation to avoid contributing any code to the project without it being
clearly licensed under the project license.

Generally speaking the key issues are that those providing code to be included in the repository understand that the
code will be released under the LGPL license, and that the person providing the code has the right to contribute the
code. For the committer themselves understanding about the license is hopefully clear. For other contributors, the
commiter should verify the understanding unless the committer is very comfortable that the contributor understands the
license (for instance frequent contributors).
--------------------

>    A document
>    <http://wiki.deegree.org/deegreeWiki/deegreeCommitterGuidelines> has
>    been set up be the PSC. It still needs final review and then has to
>    be accepted by all committers.

Yes, this task is not finished yet. Does somebody have advises on a good process for this?

Best regards,
Markus

-- 
Markus Schneider

l a t / l o n  GmbH
Aennchenstrasse 19           53177 Bonn, Germany
phone ++49 +228 184960       fax ++49 +228 1849629
http://www.lat-lon.de        http://www.deegree.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20100115/6d99b442/signature.bin