[mapserver-dev] update to rfc7 required?

[Steve Lime]

Arnulf will point out the "essentially" part... Perhaps saying "MapServer License (essentially MIT/X11)"?

I'm not advocating a signed agreement at all. However, there may be verbiage in those agreements
that makes sense for us to cover as well. Since those agreements are a generation newer that RFC 7
there may be some good ideas in them that we haven't incorporated. Also, saying that we reviewed
our commit guidelines recently makes sense as part of the incubation process.

Steve

>>> On 6/25/2008 at 10:18 AM, in message <486261B3.7080102 at pobox.com>, Frank
Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com> wrote:
> Steve Lime wrote:
>> I think it looks good. That said, is this a good time to review the legal 
> section? One change in that
>> section is that folks are committing code under the MapServer license which 
> isn't strictly MIT/X11. As
>> a result of OSGeo incubation several other projects have developed formal 
> contributor agreements
>> that we might want to compare that section against.
> 
> Steve,
> 
> We could change the name for the license, though it is essentially MIT/X.
> 
> But I'm quite opposed to a contributor agreement.  What would we hope
> to accomplish with one?
> 
> Best regards,