Cool. Thanks Jody. I really just want to get all the info in place so
people can make an informed decision when we officially vote on this (which
is what I think it is coming to). So it seems in terms of forking geotools
2.6 specifically Martin has no leg to stand on since he signed the
contributor agreement and gave up all ownership to osgeo.
Going back to him and telling him he can relicense things prior to the
osgeo transfer is an interesting idea, and something i could go for.
To sum up everyones current stance on this so far.
-1 being against any relicensing. +/- 0 being leaning one way but open to
ideas. +1 being ok with the relicense.
We miss votes from Andrea (currently on vacation) and Christian. I am sure
Andrea will respond when he gets back and i will reach out to Christian.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@...:
> Ping. Any thoughts on this Jody? We are waiting on you in order to
> figure out the response and I don't think this something we want to let sit
> for too long.
> As for my own thoughts ..
> One option is to ask OSGeo to reject this request to relicense GeoTools
> 2.5.x (as that is what this is a request for right?). Under this scenario I
> would advise Martin to a cut of his code prior to the code contribution
> agreement / GeoTools 2.5.x release (so sometime in 2008). That would not be
> acting in good faith (by either party) but it would allow him to continue
> Another option is that OSGeo reacts strongly to the @author tags on the
> referencing code, and acuster doing a lot of the incubation process grunt
> work, and asks us to make a cut of GeoTools 2.5.x under a more permissive
> license; Martin could then reapply his diffs and recreate the GeoToolkit
> codebase. Still a bit murky as his diffs were done under LGPL license in
> the GeoToolkit library.
> In this scenario I would normally advise us to change our license to
> something equally aggressive, what is good for the "goose is good for the
> gander", and I would not want to see GeoTools at a disadvantage.
> - Apache license is right out as it would be incompatible with GeoServer's
> use of GPL right?
> - PROJ is released under MIT, nothing really against that
> - GEOS and JTS are distributed under LGPL (so we are keeping good company)
> I have been asked repeatedly if there is any scenario for reconciliation.
> You can see Martin putting forth the idea of treating GeoToolkit like a
> core library in a fashion similar to JTS. This would not address our
> concerns when working with the gt-referencing module; simply holding Martin
> accountable to a steering committee. As he continues to champion this as a
> reasonable approach I am not sure if he quite understands that the problem
> is one of trust. So any scenario for reconciliation? Nothing reasonable -
> If LocationTech adopts GeoAPI I would end up meeting to match those
> interfaces again. As long as I was hiding behind interfaces I would not
> mind working with an implementation of ISO Geometry (since we have yet to
> attract funding for this undertaking ourselves).
> Finally I believe our project is successful, established and used in
> enough places to survive this (and any other storm). While I was impatient
> waiting for a release last year, it has really helped getting our docs
> cleaned up even a little bit, and biweekly Skype meetings to keep email
> from getting frustrating.
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.