[Incubator] PyWPS

[Arnulf Christl (aka Seven)]

On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 13:49 -0500, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> Andrea Aime wrote:
> > 
> > Mind, GeoServer never actually used the dual licensing scheme, though
> > there has been some discussion on whether it would be possible
> > for OpenPlans (the copyright holder) to sell GeoServer source
> > code under a commercial license.
> > 
> 
> Um... I never realized this dual licensing possibility during 
> GeoServer's incubation.
> 
> Dual licensing / single copyright holder should become a question to 
> address for future incubated projects.

This was my primary intention when asking in December [1] whether OSGeo
Incubation should more explicitly nudge projects into turning over their
Copyright. The answers were rather indifferent so I did not follow up. 

Chris pointed out that from his perspective the process and resulting
legal structure was not well defined yet, one reason why OpenLayers
never really made an effort to move their copyright under the hood of
OSGeo. Maybe this is a chance to pick this topic up again? 

My personal opinion is that the copyright of all OSGeo software should
naturally lie with OSGeo. As simple as that. I cannot see any advantage
of having the copyright elsewhere and so far nobody came up with any
good reason. But there is no hurry or pressure to do anything. 

Regards, 

[1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/2009-December/006471.html

> > There was not much discussion given such an opportunity never actually
> > came into existence, but there seemed to be agreement that it could
> > have been a good thing provided all the money gathered from the
> > sell would have been redirected back to the community in terms
> > of support, new features, and whatnot. So, an amount of money
> > that the PSC would have been in control on how to spend.
> > 
> > I might be wrong on the details, but the spirit was "it's ok
> > as long as money it goes back into growing the project".
> > 
> > The idea is, it would be a channel to allow entities that are
> > scared off by the GPL to support the project evolution nonetheless.
> > 
> 
> We'd have to be careful if we go that route: "growing the project" might 
> have a different meaning depending on which side of the fence you sit.
> 
> For instance, I'm sure the ExtJS guys think what they're doing with 
> their dual license, and updates provided only to paying users [1] is in 
> the best interest of the project, but from my point of view (as an 
> outsider), they are scaring away potential contributors, and creating a 
> huge incentive for alternatives (such as GeojQuery to replace GeoExt 
> whose users are stuck with the GPL and this commercial license vs 
> updates issue).
> 
> [1] http://www.geoext.org/pipermail/dev/2009-November/000361.html
> 
> My 0.02$ is that from the point of view of a private company who 
> controls an open source project this approach makes sense, but from the 
> point of view of a foundation such as OSGeo it is a no-go. Sometimes 
> it's tough to wear two hats and make sure we wear the right hat at the 
> right time.
> 
> Daniel



-- 
http://arnulf.us
Exploring Space, Time and Mind