[Incubator] Oskari incubation

Fri May 28 16:43:12 PDT 2021

Timo:

It is great you made your 2.0 release congratulations; it is hard to focus
on community building activities like incubation when you are crunching for
a major release.

On the incubation list we mostly wait for your mentor to nominate the
project when you both feel it is ready. The wiki
<https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Incubation_Committee#Oskari> lists Arnulf
Christl as your mentor so you should perhaps check in with him. Your
project checklist
<https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-docs/wiki/Oskari-Incubation-Checklist>
looks quite complete.
--
Jody Garnett

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 05:55, Aarnio Timo (MML) <
timo.aarnio at maanmittauslaitos.fi> wrote:

> Hi Incubators!
>
>
>
> We would like to further our incubation if we can recognize challenges
> blocking it. After the last communication a lot has obviously happened and
> we’ve e.g. released Oskari 2.0. The EUPL and MIT licenses are currently
> shipped with Oskari and the prebuilt sample application binary. I.e. the
> licenses can be found in
>
>    1. Maven’s pom.xml
>    https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-server/blob/master/pom.xml#L21-L34
>    2. the frontend’s package.json
>    https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-frontend/blob/master/package.json#L18
>    3. Repositories in GitHub all have a LICENSE-file in the SPDX-format
>    4. Sample application package
>    https://download.osgeo.org/oskari/oskari-latest-stable.zip (has
>    license documentation included)
>
>
>
> Is this enough or do we need to be more specific? We compared the GeoTools
> and GeoServer ways of listing licenses and they seem to differ quite a bit.
> GeoServer https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
> seems to have a complete listing of licenses whereas GeoTools
> https://github.com/geotools/geotools/blob/master/LICENSE.md only has the
> LGPL. We adopted the SPDX-way so that the LICENSE-file would be machine
> readable. Do you suggest we proceed by collecting a list like is done with
> GeoServer?  If so should we list licenses for dependencies as well?
>
>
>
> Are there other things we could do to help the progress of our incubation?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Timo
>
>
>
> *From:* Incubator <incubator-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> *On Behalf Of *Aarnio
> Timo (MML)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 12:42 PM
> *To:* Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* OSGeo-incubator <incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Incubator] istSOS incubation (Oskari)
>
>
>
> Thank you for your input Jody!
>
>
>
> As I understand the minimum we should do is include the EUPL (and MIT)
> license in the Jetty-distribution we have. Googling for ways to do that I
> came up with these:
>
>
> https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/181040/how-to-document-a-dual-open-source-license
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Package_Data_Exchange
>
>
>
> Is there an “OSGeo recommended” way of handling this? Particularly the
> “SPDX Way” mentioned here
>
>
> https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/181040/how-to-document-a-dual-open-source-license#371456
> looks good to me, what do you think?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Timo
>
>
>
> (PS. My apologies Jody, in the morning I sent the above message only to
> you by mistake. I also added the word Oskari to the subject-line to more
> easily recognize these messages.)
>
>
>
> *From:* Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* tiistai 15. lokakuuta 2019 8.37
> *To:* Aarnio Timo (MML) <timo.aarnio at maanmittauslaitos.fi>
> *Cc:* OSGeo-incubator <incubator at lists.osgeo.org>; Massimiliano Cannata <
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>
> *Subject:* Re: istSOS incubation
>
>
>
> I am going through the same steps I would when evaluating a software
> project to use in a professional setting. In practice many folks
> evaluate your software each year, we just have the ability to talk about it
> here and see what we can do to make it easier for parties to use your work.
>
>
>
> However, to best honest *me* providing a review is not so helpful, ... the
> goal is for your team to go through the codebase you are shipping and
> evaluate it critically. Do you communicate that the source code is open
> source, under what terms, especially when redistributing the work of others
> etc... Are you meeting the distribution terms, etc...
>
>
>
> The examples I quickly found it gave the impression that your team was
> inconsistent, which if I was evaluating the technology would be a warning
> to me that there is some risk of a mistake being made etc...
>
>
>
> You have a specific question about what needs to be included: In this case
> I really must defer to your team which is aware of the licenses you are
> working with. Many of them have terms requiring the license be included in
> source code and binary distributions.
>
>
>
> Perhaps start with that EUPL license? If I search for the word
> "distribute" It has clear instructions as its first obligation for your
> team:
>
>
>
> *Attribution right: The Licensee shall keep intact all copyright, patent
> or trademarks notices and all notices that refer to the Licence and to the
> disclaimer of warranties. The Licensee must include a copy of such notices
> and a copy of the Licence with every copy of the Work he/she distributes or
> communicates. The Licensee must cause any Derivative Work to carry
> prominent notices stating that the Work has been modified and the date of
> modification.*
>
>
>
> How are you meeting this?
>
> --
>
> Jody Garnett
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 22:58, Aarnio Timo (MML) <
> timo.aarnio at maanmittauslaitos.fi> wrote:
>
> Dear Jody & incubator-list,
>
>
>
> Many thanks for you comments and sorry for letting this slip on a break
> again! Here are hopefully some answers and at least clarifying questions:
>
>
>
> - We have not conducted a providence review other than what has been
> stated below “(All code has been developed by the registered developers
> listed on github who have signed the CLA. All external libraries have
> project compatible licenses. The project has been started as a regular Open
> Source project following the guidelines as set out by OSGeo. A
> file-per-file code review was therefore deemed superfluous.)”
>
> - Can you clarify which details are such that should be included in each
> distribution? I feel like this could be something we could rather easily
> meet if we don’t already.
>
> - I presume you are talking about the jetty-package we ship for each
> release with the WAR. I can look into that, there most probably should be a
> LICENSE-description included!
>
> - As for the headers in Java source code files, I cannot say I’m a 100% on
> this but I remember there being some kind of discussion that ended to the
> conclusion that they are not needed. At least if we add them it’ll look
> funny on GitHub as all of the .java files will have changes. Not that it
> couldn’t be done though, if you think it is necessary?
>
> - SMAKINEN is Sami Mäkinen, our architect :) on GitHub his nickname is
> ZakarFin and SMAKINEN is his username in our organization.
>
>
>
> - headers for properties file(s) is something we can also look at, I’ll
> discuss this with Sami among others in the project
>
>
>
> In FOSS4G Bucharest we had a nice discussion with Astrid Emde about OSGeo
> Live, not going into details now, but that’s something we might actually be
> interested in as well later on.
>
>
>
> Again, many thanks for your help!
>
>
>
> BR,
>
> Timo
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* tiistai 25. kesäkuuta 2019 0.34
> *To:* Aarnio Timo (MML) <timo.aarnio at maanmittauslaitos.fi>
> *Cc:* OSGeo-incubator <incubator at lists.osgeo.org>; Massimiliano Cannata <
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>
> *Subject:* Re: istSOS incubation
>
>
>
> That checklist looks good, for Providence review it has the following:
>
>
>
> *[x] Provenance Review (All code has been developed by the registered
> developers listed on github who have signed the CLA. All external libraries
> have project compatible licenses. The project has been started as a regular
> Open Source project following the guidelines as set out by OSGeo. A
> file-per-file code review was therefore deemed superfluous.)*
>
>
>
> This was a really well done codebase to review and look at - nice work :)
>
>
>
> Do you have a link to the providence review? Like if I look at the
> codebase in GitHub I can quickly find:
>
> - LICENSE.md
> <https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-server/blob/master/LICENSE.md> file
> links to EUPL v1.1
> <https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/eupl/licence-eupl>, but this
> license (which was news to me) as some details on what must be included in
> each distribution, can you say how they are being met?
>
> - one of the distributions appears to be generation of a WAR
> <https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-server/blob/master/webapp-setup/pom.xml#L12> in
> webapp-setup, this would be an example where the above LICENSE details
> should be included?
>
> - when I quickly looked at java files none of them had
> <https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-server/blob/76b78cacfddc39800f4d3af35df8760d096b5737/control-userlayer/src/main/java/org/oskari/control/userlayer/CreateUserLayerHandler.java>
> a
> <https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-server/blob/76b78cacfddc39800f4d3af35df8760d096b5737/control-routing/src/main/java/fi/nls/oskari/control/routing/RoutingHandler.java>
> header
> <https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-server/blob/76b78cacfddc39800f4d3af35df8760d096b5737/servlet-map/src/main/java/fi/nls/oskari/spring/OskariRequestInterceptor.java>
> indicating copyright and license. Can you talk us through why you made this
> decision?
>
> - looking at a specific example WebappHelper
> <https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-server/blob/76b78cacfddc39800f4d3af35df8760d096b5737/service-webapp/src/main/java/fi/nls/oskari/servlet/WebappHelper.java> (that
> looked generic) I see the user "SMAKINEN" does not appear similar to any
> contributors listed in the file commit history
> <https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-server/commits/76b78cacfddc39800f4d3af35df8760d096b5737/service-webapp/src/main/java/fi/nls/oskari/servlet/WebappHelper.java>
>  ....
>
> /**
>
>  * Created by SMAKINEN on 8.7.2015.
>
>  */
>
> public class WebappHelper {
>
>
>
> - properties file may be considered executable code, do you want a header
> indicating license?
>
> - I was impressed to see header preserved when building off of prior work
> <https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-server/blob/76b78cacfddc39800f4d3af35df8760d096b5737/geoserver-ext/OskariMarkFactory/src/main/java/org/geotools/renderer/oskari/TTFMarkFactoryOskari.java>,
> but that ends up confusing when you do not have a header of your own ...
>
> - various build files, example pom.xml
> <https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-server/blob/master/pom.xml>, lack
> copyright license details (you may not care since they do not form
> executable code)
>
>
>
> The incubation committee here is go through the same kind of steps a
> potential contributor would go through.This is the first time I have found
> a project without headers making me not quite sure how to review ...
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jody Garnett
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 19:38, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh that is my bad, got the subject wrong :(
>
> --
>
> Jody Garnett
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2019 at 14:31, Aarnio Timo (MML) <
> timo.aarnio at maanmittauslaitos.fi> wrote:
>
> Hi Jody&al!
>
>
>
> Thank you for helping, the revised checklist page can be found here:
>
> https://github.com/oskariorg/oskari-docs/wiki/Oskari-Incubation-Checklist
>
> (and the old one is still here:)
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Oskari_Incubation_Status
>
>
>
> Please let us know how it looks and if there is something we can clarify
> or improve.
>
>
>
> BR,
>
> Timo
>
>
>
> PS. I did not realize your previous message dated May 27th, the subject
> esp. with the preview of the body text got me thinking it’s unrelated,
> sorry!
>
>
>
> *From:* Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* perjantai 21. kesäkuuta 2019 19.50
> *To:* OSGeo-incubator <incubator at lists.osgeo.org>; Massimiliano Cannata <
> massimiliano.cannata at supsi.ch>; Aarnio Timo (MML) <
> timo.aarnio at maanmittauslaitos.fi>
> *Subject:* Re: istSOS incubation
>
>
>
> Any progress on a revised checklist page?
>
> --
>
> Jody Garnett
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 28 May 2019 at 12:53, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am taking this into a separate thread, thanks everyone for communicating
> across all the delays.
>
>
>
> For the specific topic on open community and communication, it is my hope
> you already meet this requirement but to answer I would need ask how the
> project functions. My personal request is you write down how the
> communication works now, and do not set a goal as it may not be needed.
>
>
>
> You can take inspiration from other projects that completed gradation
> <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Incubation_Committee#Graduated> and how they
> filled in this section.
>
>
>
> *open communication*: The key is "public" communication, but can be a
> shared chat channel, or active stack exchange (email was common when open
> source started but is less common now). There are reasons to have private
> communication channels (GeoServer has a private security email list but we
> do document that it exists and committers can be included if they are in a
> position to help fix vulnerabilities). For a quick check I look at the repo
> README.
>
>
>
> *open community:* Another aspect is that people can join the project and
> join the project leadership.We want to avoid the "single dictator" model as
> that is brittle. For a quick check I look at a repo CONTRIBTING.md.
>
>
>
> The checklist should be in a place where your team collaborates (a place
> they all have permission to edit):
>
> - If you use GitHub there is a markdown copy here
> <https://github.com/OSGeo/osgeo/tree/master/incubation/documents> to take
> into your wiki
>
> - If you use OSGeo wiki copy one of the other examples
>
> - If you use your own wiki or something that is also fine
>
>
>
> When you and your mentor are happy the mentor will nominate the project
> and share the checklist. You are also welcome to share as you write and ask
> questions about difficult sections.
>
>
>
> And I do not want the incubation sprint planning to get lost in this
> discussion, when you have a date Maxi there are several options for funding.
>
> --
>
> Jody Garnett
>
>
>
> Dear Jody and Incubator-list,
>
> Indeed, we’re still very interested in graduating as full members. Last
> time we had communications (On 24/8/18 12:46 am ) left us a bit waiting for
> answers to our questions, the most important probably being:
>
> “What kind of concrete indicators would you like to see [that we have ‘an
> open community and communication’]? What could be a good goal?”
>
> I.e. what could we do as a community in order for it to be more open? One
> thing contributing to that comes to mind (from the top of my head): We’ve
> since changed from Slack to the open-for-everyone-without-invitations
> Gitter (https://gitter.im/oskariorg/chat). AFAIK Gitter stores chat
> history indefinitely, which is a good thing. The PSC-memos are on GitHub
> and some of the discussion is on the mailing list.
>
> As for the graduation checklist, unfortunately I can’t find information
> where it should be filled. The website
> https://www.osgeo.org/resources/project-graduation-checklist/has a
> downloadable PDF which is probably the one that should be filled?
>
> Most of the information required is probably already here
> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Oskari_Incubation_Status but we’d be happy to
> fill the new one.
>
> So, can you please point us to a list we can fill? Do we send it back to
> this list then?
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
>
> - Timo
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20210528/c221c604/attachment-0001.html>