[mapserver-dev] update to rfc7 required?

[Kralidis,Tom [Burlington]]

> 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?).
> 

Updated at http://devgeo.cciw.ca/ms_tmp/ms-rfc-7.1r1.txt

Any other comments?


> > 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.
>