Re: [Geotools-devel] IP Review of GeoTIFF - Happy fun Ball?

[Bryce L N. <bno...@fs...>]

Jody Garnett <jga...@re...> wrote on 07/09/2006 04:32:09 PM:

> I have started the review.txt file and would love to beg you for help
> gathering up what information you have managed to acquire.
> Near as I can tell we should be placing both your and Mike's license
> into our developers guide, and ensuring the LICENSE.txt
> makes it into source downloads.
> Do either of you place restrictions on
> having this information go out with binary downloads? Ie mention in
> release notes or some such?

Mike says:
> >  * Take, Modify, Distribute freely
> >  * Buy, Sell, Pass it off as your own

no mention of this info going out w/binary downloads.

My stuff is public domain.  In my understanding, I am not at liberty to
place restrictions on how it is used or specify that credit must be given.

> As it is the GeoTools PMC is not mentioned as hold (C) on these files so
> I am loath to touch them. Our community process asks all patches to the
> module go through you, presumably you can apply any patches to Mike's
code.

I would think this falls under the "modify" instruction above. ;) Not being
a lawyer, however, means I have a predisposition to taking things at face
value. :) Mike's license is about as simple as it gets.  If you really
want, I can ask him for clarification, or for a re-release under a standard
license, but this is likely to add restrictions where none previously
existed.

If you can indicate what needs to be done to make it appealing to OSGEO, I
can pursue it. I don't have a real good grasp of what is currently
inadequate with the situation, so I don't know how to proceed.  The large
organization, headquartered in Washington, D.C., of which I am a part,
employs lawyers which I can probably pester for answers if absolutely
necessary (not before).

> If you could add to the review.txt file at your earlies opportunity, I
> would like to consider our ability to hand code over to OSGEO copyright
> in some months time and what effect the licenses in this module would
> have on that.

Mike's stuff...well if the lawyers view that as an impediment, it can only
be because they are control freaks.  As long as you're not taunting happy
fun ball, you're not violating any conditions of the license.  Even then, a
strong case could be made that not taunting happy fun ball is just good
overall advice designed to increase our store of karma, not a precondition
to Take(ing), Modify(ing), Distribut(ing) freely, Buy(ing), Sell(ing), or
Pass(ing) it off as (our) own.  Again, if some action needs to be taken, I
can pursue it, but I do not know what is required.

As to my public domain stuff, I think we inquired a couple of times about
this.  The result, as I recall, being that OSGEO is comfortable just
slapping their own license on it.  At worst, if OSGEO lawyers fear
retribution (e.g., lawsuit, missile attack, "accidental" fires, etc.) they
can make a paper trail by sending a written Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request to the Rocky Mountain Research Station contact on the
following page: http://www.usda.gov/da/foia_service_centers.htm.  Request
the GeoTIFF plugin to GeoTools and name me, Bryce Nordgren of the Missoula
Fire Science Laboratory, (406) 829-6955 as the custodian.  You'll get a
tarball from your subversion server, but your butt will be as completely
covered as it is possible to be in this lawyer-riddled society.

Bryce