[Geotools-admin] Why keep (c) PMC? You are right it looks to be a mistake

[Jody G. <jga...@re...>]

Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Jody Garnett a écrit :
>   
>> Things to note:
>> - (c) Open Source Geospatial Foundation
>> - leaving (c) GeoTools PMC in there even if it has no legal weight
>>     
>
> What is the advantage of keeping PMC if we list OSGEO (and maybe individuals)?
>   
None; perhaps it would be better to list the individuals? Actually it 
probably would be better. Good suggestion.
The point is to document the (c) between 2004 up until it was handed 
over to OSGeo.
> Especially since PMC fluctuate with time. I would be tempted to remove PMC if we put OSGEO.
>   
Yes; that is the point :-)
>> - previous organizations (or individuals) are still listed
>>     
> If we can not resolve the legal issue otherwise, thats fine. But if we can, my
> preference would be to sign whatever is needed for giving the copyright to
> OSGEO, provided that:
>
> * OSGEO accept it.
> * We can be confident that OSGEO will protect the open source nature of the project.
>   
I am confident in that; but so far there was nothing on the books that 
forces this issue. They have an organizational charter which we can 
decide to trust; or we can ask them to assign a document stating down 
exactly what we expect (I think this was an alternative that Adrian 
Custer was writing up).
> In my understanding, the last point was an Adrian's concern a few months ago: he
> wanted that the legal paper contains some text that explicitly state that
> GeoTools must stay under an OSI approved license. He wanted to make sure that
> the sad Mathworld story don't happen to us. If we can not get that, should be
> put a dual OSGEO & FSF license (if FSF accept)?
>   
Well we could also just do the FSF license and then just let OSGeo 
support us as a promotional organization. This would represent a failure 
on part of the value they were bringing to the table when we joined. But 
after two years; most of them deadlocked on this issue; perhaps failure 
is an option.

>> - license is LGPL 2.1
>>     
>
> Just curious: is LGPL 3.0 an option? Advantages? Inconvenients?
>   
I have not looked at it; I did consider GPL + Classpath Exception 
(because now that Java does it all biz minded people tend to like that 
option). But we had so much fun with (c) I did not want to talk about 
license unless we had to.

Jody