[postgis-devel] wait till monday for final ?

[Stephen Frost]

All,

For my 2c, all of the discussion around who is sponsoring what is really
off-topic for this list.  The project shouldn't be beholden to any
particular entity but rather should be considering the users (which can
include commercial entities, other projects, etc) and what makes the
most sense technically.

Thanks!

Stephen

* nicklas.aven (nicklas.aven at jordogskog.no) wrote:
> 
>     
> Interesting.
> Who has done this deal, and with who?Is it with PostGIS PSC?
> As far as I know the community has not discussed any deal with Toscana region and have not had any financing from it.
> And if someone have done that deal I guess both parts are responsible for discussing the consequenses in the community.
> DisclaimerI might have missed a discussion here, but then it should be no problem.
> Regards Nicklas
> 
> 
> Sent from my Samsung device
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Mark Johnson <mj10777 at googlemail.com> 
> Date: 08/10/2015  14:03  (GMT+01:00) 
> To: PostGIS Development Discussion <postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org> 
> Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] wait till monday for final ? 
> 
> 
> 
> 2015-10-08 13:41 GMT+02:00 Markus Wanner <markus at bluegap.ch>:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/08/2015 01:05 PM, Mark Johnson wrote:
> 
> > Not only very unpopular with other projects, but also with the sponsor who
> 
> > financed its development with the intention that it be made available to
> 
> > the project that they themselves use.
> 
> 
> 
> It might not be all that negative. Perhaps those other projects get
> 
> together and manage to maintain a liblwgeom fork as a separate and
> 
> independent project. That might set energy free...
> 
> 
> 
> > The sponsor will not be pleased about that.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not familiar with the deal behind, so take this with a grain of
> 
> salt: Sponsoring an initial "librarization" and then leaving the burden
> 
> of its maintenance to the PostGIS project forever doesn't sound like a
> 
> good plan to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, please understand me correctly: I'd also favor a common liblwgeom,
> 
> maintained in a joint effort. However, that clearly needs to pay off for
> 
> the PostGIS project as well - and do so in the long run.
> Well, since the initial and second financing by Tuscany Region it has already 'paid off' for PostGIS.Their assumption, for both the financing, were that the result will be usable for their other projects- for the first version that was not at all possible, all of PostGRES would had had to be included in a android project-- not very practicalThus the second financing to make it usable- the present version works without problems on Android
> And now you are demanding they finance a third time to get what they originally wanted?
> The likelihood of such organisations contributing in this way in the future will become very slim if they are treated in such a way.
> The offer should not have been accepted if there was a lack or willingness to maintain the gift that was given to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
> Markus Wanner
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> postgis-devel mailing list
> 
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel
> 
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> postgis-devel mailing list
> postgis-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/attachments/20151008/d97639b3/attachment.sig>