Re: [Geotools-devel] LEGAL: Towards graduation

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

Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Adrian Custer a écrit :
>
> (about copyright assignment to OSGEO rathet than FSF):
>   
>>         A. We need to confirm that we are going this route and address
>>         any residual concerns any of those who are willing to assign
>>         copyright may still have.
>>     
> If anyone would like an other route than OSGEO, we need to ear him now...
>   
I am at least going to write up the proposal this way; and then we can 
vote on the proposal.
> I have one residual concern: Jody on IRC suggested to replace "(C) PMC" by "(C)
> OSGEO" and keep other (C) holders. My understanding was that we would add "(C)
> OSGEO" and remove all other (C) holders (at least every one who signed the
> agreement). I though that simplifying the (C) holders was one reason for
> copyright assigment to OSGEO, in order to facilitate relicensing among other
> reasons...
>   
(c) OSGeo is a lot more simple than (c) PMC :-) I don't mind either way 
on this one; my impression was the
(c) history stays but I can be wrong ...
> Adrian gave us a "relicensing use case" later in his email
>> Since part of the intent of this work is to allow OSGeo to re-license
>> the code one day, it might be worth mentioning the fact that Java itself
>> has moved to GPL plus classpath exception and therefore we might need to
>> follow that move someday. 
>>     
Understood; I marked changing the license as out of scope for this 
proposal; it will be easier to relicense after we have
sorted out the providence review (and at that point we could search and 
replace the LGPL code). From a biz standpoint
I have carefully check with customers over the last year (ever since 
Java moved to GPL+Classpath). In each case
they had to run off and ask a legal department; in the LGPL case they 
already knew the answer.

I would hold off on GPL+Classpath for at least another year; we want the 
legal departments of the world to figure out
this new license and that will take a while yet.
>>         B. We need to decide on how we will treat future contributors.
>>         If we are planning to move SVN to OSGeo, do we grant access to
>>         that SVN only to those who have signed? If not, we need to be
>>         very clear about how a contributor needs to track their
>>         copyright over the files they touch.
>>     
> I would said: SVN write access only to those who signed.
>   
That sounds good.
> The other described by Adrian all sound good to me. I can volunter for the
> following tasks:
>
> * (C) header changes in metadata, referencing, coverage, coverageio,
>   widgets, epsg-*, go modules.
>   
I think the PMC may have to divide up the modules to get the job done; 
ask module maintainers only met with mixed success last time.
> * SVN move.
>   
How is that process going?

Jody