From: Jody G. <jod...@gm...> - 2008-07-09 02:44:44
|
Cameron Shorter wrote: > On the "Provenence Review" page, I think there should be "Summary" > section, which contains more information that the current "Status" section. > It should summarise the full status of the Provenance Review, and assign > a date, as the status will be different in the future. > I reckon it should contain mention: > > * Date > So July 9th > * A full provenance review of geotools source code has been done to ensure it is LGPL compliant. > A full review has been done to check the code for LGPL compliance; we have noted several exceptions (and we can list the bug numbers) > * We consider the code is suitable for distribution. ... > Yep > * 2 major concerns were found, ArcSDE and Oracle, and they *have been removed* from the code > They were removed from the code right away; and then restored to the build as a workaround was produced. > * Other lessor issues were identified, as listed in ... These issues are being addressed by the Geotools community. > Do to want a link to the known issues there? ----- I found on this page (http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoTools_Project_Status) a section near the end where it links to the provenence review page and talks about issues. I have updated this information. Cameron I am not sure if we should provide a summary? The other projects did not ... they expected the committee to read the review document; the fact that this document is massive for geotools should not effect that should it? Jody |