[mapserver-dev] update to rfc7 required?

[Frank Warmerdam]

Steve Lime wrote:
> Arnulf will point out the "essentially" part... Perhaps saying "MapServer
> License (essentially MIT/X11)"?

Steve,

Well, fine, lets just refer to the MapServer License instead of MIT/X (Tom?).

> 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.

The committer responsibilities / legal section Tom incorporated came right
from the suggested text on the incubation committee web site and was missing
in the original RFC 7 (which predated incubation, etc).

I guess, we can be open to suggested improvements, but I am dubious that
the contributor agreements include anything directly applicable to our
situation, and it isn't clear who would do a review looking for something
useful.

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