You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@sis.apache.org by Jody Garnett <jo...@gmail.com> on 2012/08/04 08:47:10 UTC
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Good afternoon:
I am a bit late catching up on this thread as I have limited volunteer time to help out. I would like to follow up on a request made to dual-license a subset of code pertaining to the GeoTK project.
We have a change proposal up, outlining what we hope is nice way for GeoTK to move forward:
- http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Dual+License+Request
If there are any additional assurances sis-dev requires please let me know and I can update the proposal.
Jody Garnett
GeoTools Project Officer
OSGeo Foundation
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Vincent,
Thanks to you too and great to talk to you! Thanks for reaching out.
My replies are inline below:
On Aug 13, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Geomatys.com wrote:
> Hello Chris,
>
> First of all, nice to talk to you.
>
> I remained in the background those past weeks letting Martin solve IP discussions with OSGEO, but talked a lot with him about a possible collaboration with the SIS project and how to solve things regarding the difficult relations we've got with the GeoTools community.
>
> For the a - b - c - d points, I will let Martin and other developers from Geotk/Geomatys talk with SIS community. But for the last point, as far I'm concerned I'll give my point of view, and bring some informations regarding our activity linked to Geotk.
>
> At first we started this fork in 2008 in order to solve some problems we encountered with GeoTools and it's consequences for our activity. Since that time we spent Martin's day work to rework all the packages from Geotk (core) and extended this work to Metadata NetCDF and so on ...
> In paralel, we benefit from funded jobs to rewrite packages after packages, a lot of GeoTools source code hosted on the pending part of the project. Today, only 10 or 20% of historical code remains, and as we're now more than 15 people working on it, it'll be not to hard to complete this work.
Ah, thanks that's an important piece of history for you to share. Thanks on that.
>
> Based on this toolkit, we've created a SDI framework called Constellation-SDI that offers WMS, WMTS, CS-W, WFS, WCS, SOS and WPS services. We've developed a geospatial catalog (MDWeb), a web client framework JSF based (MapFaces), and a desktop client (Puzzle-GIS).
Wow, OK, cool sounds pretty comprehensive!
>
> All those project are used to develop our customers solutions, and in some cases they've some teams working internally to extend its projects.
>
> That said, it seems clear that we couldn't give up immediately Geotk developement without putting Geomatys in a dangerous situation.
Sure, gotcha. And based on the below it seems like you have deduced a plan that is agreeable on the Geomatys side and the software
you guys are supporting, and that seems workable from the Apache SIS side. I think the faster and sooner you and your team come over
to Apache SIS, the quicker you can retire the GeoTK stuff.
>
> After some thought, we considered that the best way to migrate our projects without disturbing too much our activity was to start with the core modules, and when this task is achieved, we could easily replace Geotk-core by SIS Core. After that we could continue with the pending part of Geotk. One of the benefits of this migration method is that during the migration of the core part, we should have finished the rewrite of the remaining GeoTools packages in the Geotk-Pending repository.
>
Sure that sounds great.
> To follow this plan, and to keep coherent with the licenses, we will have to migrate all our code from LGPL to Apache2. LGPL 2.1 isn't compliant with Apache License, and we couldn't use SIS-Core with Geotk pending as it is now.
Sure, got it.
>
> Last but not least, by doing that way, we can take the time to work together and test if we're compatible enough to create a long term community all together (on that point I'm very confident regarding our common objectives).
+1, and me too RE: our common objectives and the ability to work together!
> This point is for me really important because we've worked hard to reach our independence form the GeoTools Project, and migrating progressively from Geotk to SIS allows us to minify the risk of failure if something goes wrong.
+1.
> I do not hide that I'm a bit worried by the few exchange on the list concerning GeoTools and the dual-licensing stuff. We've not spent so much energy to have a clear separation between the two projects, that it will be hard to accept for us if we've to deal again with this community through the SIS project.
Well I can't control what folks send to the list, but I can pretty much tell you that I'm interested in the "Apache way" and in
promoting folks that abide by it, and work within our community. So far, so good, and I appreciate your contributions here.
>
> So, to answer clearly the questions bellow :
>
>> e. As an Apache SIS mentor, my question to you is:
>> - do you anticipate closing down GeoTK at some point?
> Yes
>> If so, when.
> when the core and pending part of Geotk will be fully migrated to SIS
+1
>
>> If not, why?
> Not if during the migration process we encounter some community problems, keeping us safe to continue our business.
>
>> I'm not a fan of co-developing projects, and communities here are the
>> in the GeoTK community going to come over here to the ASF and Apache SIS
>> project, or will work continue over at GeoTK? I would hope the answer is
>> that work *would not* continue at GeoTK and that you guys would come
>> create issues of some code, or even replicated code over here at the ASF,
>> being released and developed somewhere else (e.g., GeoTK.org).
> I'm not a big fan of duplicated work too and a convergence toward a single community is for me the goal we've to reach.
+1
>> ASF. More so than the code, the community is what we care about. Are others
>> here. It reduces friction, reduces duplication of development, and doesn't
> The most important thing that persuaded us to contact you is the community.
> Today we can migrate the major part of our Geotk code to Apache2 and continue working as before, but we were looking for a scientific geospatial community to work with, and I guess we found it.
That sounds great VIncent and thank you for your thoughtful replies. Glad to have you
on list and working with Apache SIS!
Cheers,
Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by "Geomatys.com" <vi...@geomatys.com>.
Hello Chris,
First of all, nice to talk to you.
I remained in the background those past weeks letting Martin solve IP discussions with OSGEO, but talked a lot with him about a possible collaboration with the SIS project and how to solve things regarding the difficult relations we've got with the GeoTools community.
For the a - b - c - d points, I will let Martin and other developers from Geotk/Geomatys talk with SIS community. But for the last point, as far I'm concerned I'll give my point of view, and bring some informations regarding our activity linked to Geotk.
At first we started this fork in 2008 in order to solve some problems we encountered with GeoTools and it's consequences for our activity. Since that time we spent Martin's day work to rework all the packages from Geotk (core) and extended this work to Metadata NetCDF and so on ...
In paralel, we benefit from funded jobs to rewrite packages after packages, a lot of GeoTools source code hosted on the pending part of the project. Today, only 10 or 20% of historical code remains, and as we're now more than 15 people working on it, it'll be not to hard to complete this work.
Based on this toolkit, we've created a SDI framework called Constellation-SDI that offers WMS, WMTS, CS-W, WFS, WCS, SOS and WPS services. We've developed a geospatial catalog (MDWeb), a web client framework JSF based (MapFaces), and a desktop client (Puzzle-GIS).
All those project are used to develop our customers solutions, and in some cases they've some teams working internally to extend its projects.
That said, it seems clear that we couldn't give up immediately Geotk developement without putting Geomatys in a dangerous situation.
After some thought, we considered that the best way to migrate our projects without disturbing too much our activity was to start with the core modules, and when this task is achieved, we could easily replace Geotk-core by SIS Core. After that we could continue with the pending part of Geotk. One of the benefits of this migration method is that during the migration of the core part, we should have finished the rewrite of the remaining GeoTools packages in the Geotk-Pending repository.
To follow this plan, and to keep coherent with the licenses, we will have to migrate all our code from LGPL to Apache2. LGPL 2.1 isn't compliant with Apache License, and we couldn't use SIS-Core with Geotk pending as it is now.
Last but not least, by doing that way, we can take the time to work together and test if we're compatible enough to create a long term community all together (on that point I'm very confident regarding our common objectives). This point is for me really important because we've worked hard to reach our independence form the GeoTools Project, and migrating progressively from Geotk to SIS allows us to minify the risk of failure if something goes wrong.
I do not hide that I'm a bit worried by the few exchange on the list concerning GeoTools and the dual-licensing stuff. We've not spent so much energy to have a clear separation between the two projects, that it will be hard to accept for us if we've to deal again with this community through the SIS project.
So, to answer clearly the questions bellow :
> e. As an Apache SIS mentor, my question to you is:
> - do you anticipate closing down GeoTK at some point?
Yes
> If so, when.
when the core and pending part of Geotk will be fully migrated to SIS
> If not, why?
Not if during the migration process we encounter some community problems, keeping us safe to continue our business.
> I'm not a fan of co-developing projects, and communities here are the
> in the GeoTK community going to come over here to the ASF and Apache SIS
> project, or will work continue over at GeoTK? I would hope the answer is
> that work *would not* continue at GeoTK and that you guys would come
> create issues of some code, or even replicated code over here at the ASF,
> being released and developed somewhere else (e.g., GeoTK.org).
I'm not a big fan of duplicated work too and a convergence toward a single community is for me the goal we've to reach.
> ASF. More so than the code, the community is what we care about. Are others
> here. It reduces friction, reduces duplication of development, and doesn't
The most important thing that persuaded us to contact you is the community.
Today we can migrate the major part of our Geotk code to Apache2 and continue working as before, but we were looking for a scientific geospatial community to work with, and I guess we found it.
Cheers,
Vincent
Vincent Heurteaux
GEOMATYS
vincent.heurteaux@geomatys.com
Tel. +33(0)6 42 92 29 28
Le 12 août 2012 à 17:17, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov> a écrit :
> Hi Martin,
>
> This sounds great. I think it's fine to proceed since it's my understanding that:
>
> a. there is no dispute as to the fact that apparently you wrote 95% or more of
> this code in GeoTK.
>
> b. the remaining 5% won't be brought over, and will be rewritten.
>
> c. the OSGeo board seems to be VOTE'ing favorably that despite your
> OSGeo contributor license agreement, you still have very broad rights
> with the code you developed in a) and thus can relicense it under the
> Apache License version 2.
>
> d. Because of a-c), you should probably:
> - sign and submit an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement
> (ICLA), as should anyone in the GeoTK community that comes over
> to Apache SIS, to cover your contributions here at the ASF.
>
> e. As an Apache SIS mentor, my question to you is:
> - do you anticipate closing down GeoTK at some point? If so, when. If not,
> why? I'm not a fan of co-developing projects, and communities here are the
> ASF. More so than the code, the community is what we care about. Are others
> in the GeoTK community going to come over here to the ASF and Apache SIS
> project, or will work continue over at GeoTK? I would hope the answer is
> that work *would not* continue at GeoTK and that you guys would come
> here. It reduces friction, reduces duplication of development, and doesn't
> create issues of some code, or even replicated code over here at the ASF,
> being released and developed somewhere else (e.g., GeoTK.org).
>
> Thanks and let me know.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On Aug 12, 2012, at 1:13 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
>
>> Hello all
>>
>> The OSGeo board meeting agreed by IRC on the following motion:
>>
>> "The board understands that it was the intention of the GeoTools
>> Contributor Agreement to grant the Contributor right to relicense
>> their Submission"
>>
>>
>> They are doing a confirmation vote by emails right now:
>>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2012-August/010006.html
>> (votes are in the replies)
>>
>>
>> While we are waiting for the last votes, it seems that there is an agreement. If everything go fine, it means that Geotk code base can be offered to Apache as an independent contribution, provided that we remove some code identified by Subversion history.
>>
>> Some other proposals were discussed on this list, like OSGeo signing a Software Grant, or dual licensing. All those proposals would provide to Apache SIS a wider code base, but would need to be negotiated with the GeoTools PMC (by contrast, the clarification of contributor's right is done by the OSGeo board). I don't think that we need such extended code base in the early stages. If we proceed by slow introduction of code on a case-by-case basis - in order to allow discussion -, then we have time before to hit spots written by other contributors, like the "New Zealand Map Grid" (EPSG:9811) projection. I can inform the list when reaching such spot, so the members can decide between omit, rewrite, replace by an other dependency or ask OSGeo for code grant, in light of the code in question. The time that we have also allows the GeoTools PMC to push their own reflection on dual licensing if they wish, at their own speed and independently of Apache SIS.
>>
>> What do peoples think?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Martin,
On Aug 13, 2012, at 1:57 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Hello Chris
>
> Le 13/08/12 00:17, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) a écrit :
>> d. Because of a-c), you should probably:
>> - sign and submit an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement
>> (ICLA), as should anyone in the GeoTK community that comes over
>> to Apache SIS, to cover your contributions here at the ASF.
>
> Yes, I will do and will ask other developers to do so too. Does Geomatys needs to sign a Corporate CLA?
Awesome, that will be great for the devs to sign ICLAs.
If Geomatys is willing to sign a Corporate Contributor License Agreement (CCLA) that would
also be nice from a provenance perspective too, and also to ease any of the devs from
the company making Apache contributions.
>
>
>> e. As an Apache SIS mentor, my question to you is:
>> - do you anticipate closing down GeoTK at some point? If so, when. If not, why?
>
> We would like to transfer the code progressively to SIS, then replace the moved Geotk code by a SIS dependency when the moved code has reached equivalent functionalities. When all the code will have migrated, we can close Geotk. However activities on Geotk is likely to continue until the migration is completed. For example during the transfer of ISO 19115 implementation to SIS, development of NetCDF bindings continue on Geotk. I don't know how long the full transfer will take.
Sure that makes sense, +1.
>
> We also have to manage the other projects that depend on Geotk (Constellation-SDI, MapFaces, MD-Web, Puzzle...). Replacement of Geotk by SIS will have to go through a "deprecate, then delete" cycle on the Geotk side with some time left for allowing other projects to adapt.
+1
>
>
>> Are others
>> in the GeoTK community going to come over here to the ASF and Apache SIS
>> project, or will work continue over at GeoTK?
>
> The plan is that others will come over SIS when the code to transfer will reach the parts that they are involved in. If we transfer code in dependency order, then this would probably means after the referencing module, when we will start to talk about geometry, features and rendering. Until then, I don't see any place other than Geotk where those developers could continue their work...
OK that makes sense.
>
>
>> I would hope the answer is
>> that work *would not* continue at GeoTK and that you guys would come
>> here. It reduces friction, reduces duplication of development, and doesn't
>> create issues of some code, or even replicated code over here at the ASF,
>> being released and developed somewhere else (e.g., GeoTK.org).
>
> But the lack of branches can also, in some occasions, produce other kind of frictions.
Sure, internal branches are fine. It's just that at the ASF we don't want folks using our names
e.g., "Apache" ProjectName (in this case Apache SIS), and/or our namespaces (org.apache.sis), and/or our
code in competing efforts. It doesn't sound like GeoTK will be "competing" with Apache SIS since you guys
have a solid plan for bringing the projects and the communities together, so just raising that.
> Sometime a user or a company needs to apply a patch fast, because they have some deadline required by contract. Sometime the patch is not acceptable for a high-quality general purpose library - it may be too specific to particular client needs for instance, or it may not fit well in the library design.
Sure we have this issue with Apache OODT and so forth and we've had several projects and missions keep their internal
modifications inside of their own local SVN repos and branches and such. Then, when the time comes, we hope that the
members of those projects work on generalizing those branched functionalities and bringing them back to the benefit of
everyone else (e.g., see OODT-215 [1] for an example of this). If they don't make sense to be brought back, then yes,
they remain in the project repo. But I wouldn't consider this to be a competing effort, or any such, so I think that's fine. Also
it's important to not splinter the community, and to have discussions on list and to make sure that all decisions related
to the project happen here and not on internal mailing lists, or in those local branches/etc. No one's perfect, and we don't
always get it right, but we try :)
> Sometime the proper fix would require a much larger effort which can't be afforded in the available time. Trying to push the patch in the SVN anyway "because our client has paid for it" can also be a source of friction with other members.
+1 totally agree. That's why companies don't control the ASF, or its projects, and while we have a centralized board, it
much favors local, decentralized decisions by the project management committee, and the project's community. Individuals,
and their contributions, control the ASF and their projects. That's why it's a meritocracy here. Companies don't push us
into committing patches :) Individuals push patches, when we trust them to give them PMC and committer access to the
source code. So trust is important here, as-is the loose set of principles that we abide by called "the Apache way":
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
> This is where distributed versionning like GIT can be a big help, since it allows a company to maintain internally a repository clone with their own patches until a proper fix is applied on the trunk.
Heh, sure Git can do this, but so can SVN :) We've been doing it for years within several projects (Hadoop, Tika, OODT, etc.)
> For those cases, the read-only GIT mirrors provided by Apache would do the trick, since the "ugly" patches are not aimed to be merged back to the trunk.
Sure, the Git mirrors are good for that, +1.
Thanks man!
Cheers,
Chris
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OODT-215
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by Martin Desruisseaux <ma...@geomatys.fr>.
Hello Chris
Le 13/08/12 00:17, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) a écrit :
> d. Because of a-c), you should probably:
> - sign and submit an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement
> (ICLA), as should anyone in the GeoTK community that comes over
> to Apache SIS, to cover your contributions here at the ASF.
Yes, I will do and will ask other developers to do so too. Does Geomatys
needs to sign a Corporate CLA?
> e. As an Apache SIS mentor, my question to you is:
> - do you anticipate closing down GeoTK at some point? If so, when. If not, why?
We would like to transfer the code progressively to SIS, then replace
the moved Geotk code by a SIS dependency when the moved code has reached
equivalent functionalities. When all the code will have migrated, we can
close Geotk. However activities on Geotk is likely to continue until the
migration is completed. For example during the transfer of ISO 19115
implementation to SIS, development of NetCDF bindings continue on Geotk.
I don't know how long the full transfer will take.
We also have to manage the other projects that depend on Geotk
(Constellation-SDI, MapFaces, MD-Web, Puzzle...). Replacement of Geotk
by SIS will have to go through a "deprecate, then delete" cycle on the
Geotk side with some time left for allowing other projects to adapt.
> Are others
> in the GeoTK community going to come over here to the ASF and Apache SIS
> project, or will work continue over at GeoTK?
The plan is that others will come over SIS when the code to transfer
will reach the parts that they are involved in. If we transfer code in
dependency order, then this would probably means after the referencing
module, when we will start to talk about geometry, features and
rendering. Until then, I don't see any place other than Geotk where
those developers could continue their work...
> I would hope the answer is
> that work *would not* continue at GeoTK and that you guys would come
> here. It reduces friction, reduces duplication of development, and doesn't
> create issues of some code, or even replicated code over here at the ASF,
> being released and developed somewhere else (e.g., GeoTK.org).
But the lack of branches can also, in some occasions, produce other kind
of frictions. Sometime a user or a company needs to apply a patch fast,
because they have some deadline required by contract. Sometime the patch
is not acceptable for a high-quality general purpose library - it may be
too specific to particular client needs for instance, or it may not fit
well in the library design. Sometime the proper fix would require a much
larger effort which can't be afforded in the available time. Trying to
push the patch in the SVN anyway "because our client has paid for it"
can also be a source of friction with other members. This is where
distributed versionning like GIT can be a big help, since it allows a
company to maintain internally a repository clone with their own patches
until a proper fix is applied on the trunk. For those cases, the
read-only GIT mirrors provided by Apache would do the trick, since the
"ugly" patches are not aimed to be merged back to the trunk.
Cheers
Martin
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Martin,
This sounds great. I think it's fine to proceed since it's my understanding that:
a. there is no dispute as to the fact that apparently you wrote 95% or more of
this code in GeoTK.
b. the remaining 5% won't be brought over, and will be rewritten.
c. the OSGeo board seems to be VOTE'ing favorably that despite your
OSGeo contributor license agreement, you still have very broad rights
with the code you developed in a) and thus can relicense it under the
Apache License version 2.
d. Because of a-c), you should probably:
- sign and submit an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement
(ICLA), as should anyone in the GeoTK community that comes over
to Apache SIS, to cover your contributions here at the ASF.
e. As an Apache SIS mentor, my question to you is:
- do you anticipate closing down GeoTK at some point? If so, when. If not,
why? I'm not a fan of co-developing projects, and communities here are the
ASF. More so than the code, the community is what we care about. Are others
in the GeoTK community going to come over here to the ASF and Apache SIS
project, or will work continue over at GeoTK? I would hope the answer is
that work *would not* continue at GeoTK and that you guys would come
here. It reduces friction, reduces duplication of development, and doesn't
create issues of some code, or even replicated code over here at the ASF,
being released and developed somewhere else (e.g., GeoTK.org).
Thanks and let me know.
Cheers,
Chris
On Aug 12, 2012, at 1:13 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Hello all
>
> The OSGeo board meeting agreed by IRC on the following motion:
>
> "The board understands that it was the intention of the GeoTools
> Contributor Agreement to grant the Contributor right to relicense
> their Submission"
>
>
> They are doing a confirmation vote by emails right now:
>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2012-August/010006.html
> (votes are in the replies)
>
>
> While we are waiting for the last votes, it seems that there is an agreement. If everything go fine, it means that Geotk code base can be offered to Apache as an independent contribution, provided that we remove some code identified by Subversion history.
>
> Some other proposals were discussed on this list, like OSGeo signing a Software Grant, or dual licensing. All those proposals would provide to Apache SIS a wider code base, but would need to be negotiated with the GeoTools PMC (by contrast, the clarification of contributor's right is done by the OSGeo board). I don't think that we need such extended code base in the early stages. If we proceed by slow introduction of code on a case-by-case basis - in order to allow discussion -, then we have time before to hit spots written by other contributors, like the "New Zealand Map Grid" (EPSG:9811) projection. I can inform the list when reaching such spot, so the members can decide between omit, rewrite, replace by an other dependency or ask OSGeo for code grant, in light of the code in question. The time that we have also allows the GeoTools PMC to push their own reflection on dual licensing if they wish, at their own speed and independently of Apache SIS.
>
> What do peoples think?
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by Martin Desruisseaux <ma...@geomatys.fr>.
Hello all
The OSGeo board meeting agreed by IRC on the following motion:
"The board understands that it was the intention of the GeoTools
Contributor Agreement to grant the Contributor right to relicense
their Submission"
They are doing a confirmation vote by emails right now:
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2012-August/010006.html
(votes are in the replies)
While we are waiting for the last votes, it seems that there is an
agreement. If everything go fine, it means that Geotk code base can be
offered to Apache as an independent contribution, provided that we
remove some code identified by Subversion history.
Some other proposals were discussed on this list, like OSGeo signing a
Software Grant, or dual licensing. All those proposals would provide to
Apache SIS a wider code base, but would need to be negotiated with the
GeoTools PMC (by contrast, the clarification of contributor's right is
done by the OSGeo board). I don't think that we need such extended code
base in the early stages. If we proceed by slow introduction of code on
a case-by-case basis - in order to allow discussion -, then we have time
before to hit spots written by other contributors, like the "New Zealand
Map Grid" (EPSG:9811) projection. I can inform the list when reaching
such spot, so the members can decide between omit, rewrite, replace by
an other dependency or ask OSGeo for code grant, in light of the code in
question. The time that we have also allows the GeoTools PMC to push
their own reflection on dual licensing if they wish, at their own speed
and independently of Apache SIS.
What do peoples think?
Regards,
Martin
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Martin,
I have just replied to Jody and the rest of the SIS community suggesting GeoTK and
OSGeo may want to look at the Apache Software Grant form:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
It can establish clean provenance, identify contributors and serve as a grant of the
upstream contribution to the Apache Software Foundation (and the Apache SIS
project).
Anyways something to consider. We are very happy to be working with you
and with OSGeo to bring this to a resolution.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Chris
On Aug 4, 2012, at 1:30 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Hello Jody
>
> Le 04/08/12 08:47, Jody Garnett a écrit :
>> We have a change proposal up, outlining what we hope is nice way for GeoTK to move forward:
>> - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Dual+License+Request
>
> Thanks for this proposal. Just to clarify, there is in fact two different aspects to this re-licensing request, both of them concerning different boards:
>
> 1. Clarify the contributor's right over their own contributions.
> Andrian, who wrote the Copyright Assignment with a Lawyer, told us
> that the intend was to give unrestricted rights to the contributors,
> including re-licensing provided that all other contributions are
> removed. This question is under OSGeo's responsibility, which is
> expected to take a decision August 9.
> 2. Inclusion of some other contributions in the re-licensing, in order
> to avoid us the effort of removing/rewriting some code based on
> Subversion history. This point is under GeoTools PMC's responsibility.
>
>
> We originally asked for both 1 and 2, but later on we had withdrawn the request 2 on the basis that the amount of code to remove/rewrite is sufficiently small, that asking only for 1 would be presumably easier, and that making the two projects more distinct may not be bad after all. In any cases, we need to wait for OSGeo decision anyway (we think that a clarification of request 1 is of wider scope than just GeoTools/Geotk), and then we will hopefully have a clearer picture of the possibilities.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by Jody Garnett <jo...@gmail.com>.
Good morning Martin:
> > I am acting on your original request to geotools-devel; if you wish to withdraw that request you may do so.
>
> You mean send an email on geotools-devel? You are right, I should have
> done so... Sorry for having neglected that (I posted the withdrawn of
> request #2 only on the OSGeo list). I will post on geotools-devel today.
>
>
Ah ha - I see the source of confusion.
I do not take action based on email discussion (or private email).
I assume you would need to check with your other community members before taking action, in this case you may wish to confer with the members of sis-dev and decide how to proceed.
My recommendation would be to put the proposal on hold until you have had community input.
Jody
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by Martin Desruisseaux <ma...@geomatys.fr>.
Hello Jody
Le 04/08/12 10:38, Jody Garnett a écrit :
> I am acting on your original request to geotools-devel; if you wish to withdraw that request you may do so.
You mean send an email on geotools-devel? You are right, I should have
done so... Sorry for having neglected that (I posted the withdrawn of
request #2 only on the OSGeo list). I will post on geotools-devel today.
> The GeoTools project enjoys working with several apache dependencies, and is not against setting up a procedure to support your request to dual license files as per your original request.
Maybe the procedure can continue as someone's else request if you wish?
On our side, we though that the request #1 to OSGeo would be a good fit
for our needs. It leaves to GeoTools more time and freedom about the
request #2, since it would now be an independent procedure.
Martin
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by Jody Garnett <jo...@gmail.com>.
> > Thanks for reaching out, as you can see in that meeting adgenda my own involvement in this discussion has been called into question, it will be far more clear if you can speak for sis-dev.
>
> Alright I've made a post on board@lists.osgeo.org (mailto:board@lists.osgeo.org):
>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2012-August/009948.html
>
Thanks for making contact, always easier. Indeed that is why I am here on sis-dev as well :-)
>
>
>
Jody
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Jody et al.,
On Aug 5, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Good Morning:
>
>> Hi Jody:
>>
>> Just to follow up:
>>
>> 1. I sent in a subscription request to OSGeo Board's Mailman lists:
>>
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/subscribe/board
>>
>> 2. I found the Board Meeting wiki for OSGeo:
>>
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2012-08-09
>>
>> And then looked at:
>>
>> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors
>>
>> It wasn't clear to me what channel the meeting is held on? Is it
>> held on #osgeo (found this from another obscure meeting
>> notes link, but not sure since that seems to be broad chatter
>> for a board meeting)?
> That is the correct channel, on #freenode.
>
OK got it.
> Thanks for reaching out, as you can see in that meeting adgenda my own involvement in this discussion has been called into question, it will be far more clear if you can speak for sis-dev.
>
Alright I've made a post on board@lists.osgeo.org:
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2012-August/009948.html
We'll see what they say.
Cheers,
Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by Jody Garnett <jo...@gmail.com>.
Good Morning:
> Hi Jody:
>
> Just to follow up:
>
> 1. I sent in a subscription request to OSGeo Board's Mailman lists:
>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/subscribe/board
>
> 2. I found the Board Meeting wiki for OSGeo:
>
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2012-08-09
>
> And then looked at:
>
> http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors
>
> It wasn't clear to me what channel the meeting is held on? Is it
> held on #osgeo (found this from another obscure meeting
> notes link, but not sure since that seems to be broad chatter
> for a board meeting)?
>
>
That is the correct channel, on #freenode.
Thanks for reaching out, as you can see in that meeting adgenda my own involvement in this discussion has been called into question, it will be far more clear if you can speak for sis-dev.
All the best,
Jody Garnett
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Jody:
Just to follow up:
1. I sent in a subscription request to OSGeo Board's Mailman lists:
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/subscribe/board
2. I found the Board Meeting wiki for OSGeo:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_2012-08-09
And then looked at:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Board_of_Directors
It wasn't clear to me what channel the meeting is held on? Is it
held on #osgeo (found this from another obscure meeting
notes link, but not sure since that seems to be broad chatter
for a board meeting)?
Cheers,
Chris
On Aug 5, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Jody,
>
> On Aug 4, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
>> Thanks for getting back to me.
>>
>> The idea of using a software grant is well taken. It may be easier to hand over code in this fashion to sis-dev. While it goes beyond the mandate of the OSGeo board we could write a proposal up to this effect if you so desire.
>
> Thanks. I think a Software Grant would be a great, clean way (provenance and IP wise) to cover the former contributions.
> So if you guys are +1 to it, I would be +1 to it.
>
>>
>> I suggest you, or another Apache SIS representative, attend the OSGeo board meeting (it takes place via IRC) and be on hand to answer questions about the sis-dev incubation process. You may also wish to join to OSGeo board email list to answer questions out of band.
>
> Sure can you point me at where/when I can get info about the board meeting and the board list to join? I'll try and dig
> this up myself, but I'm guessing you may have it handy.
>
>>
>> I hope these details will be easier to set up once GeoTK has entered sis-dev incubation. As indicated on that proposal page I assumed we would shoot for a letter of understanding allowing incubation to commence, and then have a starting place to work on the details.
>
> Yeah on the ASF side, Apache SIS is an Incubating project, not yet graduated, so we are subject to the Apache
> Incubator and its guidelines. On our end, since this is a contribution (code donation), as well as a set of folks
> (a community), we are a meritocracy, so I imagine as Martin and others start submitting patches, doing documentation,
> answering questions on list, engaging in thoughtful discussion, etc., those are all contributions and qualities that
> will earn him and others committership and PPMC membership in Apache SIS, and the ability to help guide
> and set the direction for the project. Individuals here submit an Apache ICLA to cover their contributions:
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>
> The software grant covers the software and code and IP provenance of the upstream code that will come
> along with the people.
>
> Even without a software grant, and the GeoTK codebase, Martin, yourself, anyone that would like to
> contribute to projects here at the Foundation should really sign one.
>
> As an organization, OSGeo may also sign a Corporate Contributor License Agreement (CCLA) that
> *could* cover future potential contributions from members of their organization. But for now, starting
> small (ICLA, software grant, patches to SIS, etc.) is probably the best bet.
>
>>
>> Note: I am not a board member, and am here as GeoTools project officer. As such I need to take any course of action back to our project steering committee for approval.
>
> Same here. I'm an officer of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) as VP, Apache OODT, and VP Apache Tika, but I am not a
> board member. I am a Project Mentor and PPMC member of Apache SIS, and extremely interested in its success and in
> the release, maintenance and evolution of an ALv2 licensed, great spatial toolkit here at the ASF.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Jody,
On Aug 4, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Thanks for getting back to me.
>
> The idea of using a software grant is well taken. It may be easier to hand over code in this fashion to sis-dev. While it goes beyond the mandate of the OSGeo board we could write a proposal up to this effect if you so desire.
Thanks. I think a Software Grant would be a great, clean way (provenance and IP wise) to cover the former contributions.
So if you guys are +1 to it, I would be +1 to it.
>
> I suggest you, or another Apache SIS representative, attend the OSGeo board meeting (it takes place via IRC) and be on hand to answer questions about the sis-dev incubation process. You may also wish to join to OSGeo board email list to answer questions out of band.
Sure can you point me at where/when I can get info about the board meeting and the board list to join? I'll try and dig
this up myself, but I'm guessing you may have it handy.
>
> I hope these details will be easier to set up once GeoTK has entered sis-dev incubation. As indicated on that proposal page I assumed we would shoot for a letter of understanding allowing incubation to commence, and then have a starting place to work on the details.
Yeah on the ASF side, Apache SIS is an Incubating project, not yet graduated, so we are subject to the Apache
Incubator and its guidelines. On our end, since this is a contribution (code donation), as well as a set of folks
(a community), we are a meritocracy, so I imagine as Martin and others start submitting patches, doing documentation,
answering questions on list, engaging in thoughtful discussion, etc., those are all contributions and qualities that
will earn him and others committership and PPMC membership in Apache SIS, and the ability to help guide
and set the direction for the project. Individuals here submit an Apache ICLA to cover their contributions:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
The software grant covers the software and code and IP provenance of the upstream code that will come
along with the people.
Even without a software grant, and the GeoTK codebase, Martin, yourself, anyone that would like to
contribute to projects here at the Foundation should really sign one.
As an organization, OSGeo may also sign a Corporate Contributor License Agreement (CCLA) that
*could* cover future potential contributions from members of their organization. But for now, starting
small (ICLA, software grant, patches to SIS, etc.) is probably the best bet.
>
> Note: I am not a board member, and am here as GeoTools project officer. As such I need to take any course of action back to our project steering committee for approval.
Same here. I'm an officer of the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) as VP, Apache OODT, and VP Apache Tika, but I am not a
board member. I am a Project Mentor and PPMC member of Apache SIS, and extremely interested in its success and in
the release, maintenance and evolution of an ALv2 licensed, great spatial toolkit here at the ASF.
Cheers,
Chris
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by Jody Garnett <jo...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for getting back to me.
The idea of using a software grant is well taken. It may be easier to hand over code in this fashion to sis-dev. While it goes beyond the mandate of the OSGeo board we could write a proposal up to this effect if you so desire.
We have managed to burn a little good will by getting communication off to a sloppy start, and I would like to see if we can fix this.
I suggest you, or another Apache SIS representative, attend the OSGeo board meeting (it takes place via IRC) and be on hand to answer questions about the sis-dev incubation process. You may also wish to join to OSGeo board email list to answer questions out of band.
I hope these details will be easier to set up once GeoTK has entered sis-dev incubation. As indicated on that proposal page I assumed we would shoot for a letter of understanding allowing incubation to commence, and then have a starting place to work on the details.
Note: I am not a board member, and am here as GeoTools project officer. As such I need to take any course of action back to our project steering committee for approval.
--
Jody Garnett
On Sunday, 5 August 2012 at 2:52 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Jody,
>
> Speaking from the Apache SIS community, and as an ASF member, I have now
> raised this issue to the Apache Board, the Apache Incubator PMC and to other
> long standing members of the Foundation.
>
> I personally want to see the ASF and OSGeo be able to work together, and to also
> provide a mechanism and community for GeoTK and for Martin to be able to release
> and develop ALv2 licensed geospatial code.
>
> I just want to let you know that your work is not lost and we here in Apache SIS
> appreciate the contribution and the effort. I hope someone from the ASF speaking
> in an official capacity can join in on this thread (I have asked for it) and help
> shepherd and facilitate this interaction.
>
> Just my 2 cents: OSGeo could also consider simply signing and submitting a
> Software Grant, along with Martin, on behalf of GeoTK and *grant* the code
> (or donate it) to the Apache Software Fondation. That cleans up the IP, and
> establishes a direct line of provenance.
>
> Our software grant is here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
>
> Thanks and looking forward to continuing this discussion with you and Martin.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On Aug 4, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
> > This is unfortunate Martin as we have spent several days towards
> > working with sis-dev on your behalf.
> >
> > I will leave the sis-dev list to decide how they wish to engage us on
> > this topic.
> > --
> > Jody Garnett
> >
> > On 04/08/2012, at 7:58 PM, Martin Desruisseaux
> > <martin.desruisseaux@geomatys.fr (mailto:martin.desruisseaux@geomatys.fr)> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Jody
> > >
> > > Le 04/08/12 10:38, Jody Garnett a écrit :
> > > > I am acting on your original request to geotools-devel; if you wish to withdraw that request you may do so.
> > >
> > > You mean send an email on geotools-devel? You are right, I should have
> > > done so... Sorry for having neglected that (I posted the withdrawn of
> > > request #2 only on the OSGeo list). I will post on geotools-devel today.
> > >
> > > > The GeoTools project enjoys working with several apache dependencies, and is not against setting up a procedure to support your request to dual license files as per your original request.
> > > Maybe the procedure can continue as someone's else request if you wish?
> > > On our side, we though that the request #1 to OSGeo would be a good fit
> > > for our needs. It leaves to GeoTools more time and freedom about the
> > > request #2, since it would now be an independent procedure.
> > >
> > > Martin
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov (mailto:chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov)
> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hi Jody,
Speaking from the Apache SIS community, and as an ASF member, I have now
raised this issue to the Apache Board, the Apache Incubator PMC and to other
long standing members of the Foundation.
I personally want to see the ASF and OSGeo be able to work together, and to also
provide a mechanism and community for GeoTK and for Martin to be able to release
and develop ALv2 licensed geospatial code.
I just want to let you know that your work is not lost and we here in Apache SIS
appreciate the contribution and the effort. I hope someone from the ASF speaking
in an official capacity can join in on this thread (I have asked for it) and help
shepherd and facilitate this interaction.
Just my 2 cents: OSGeo could also consider simply signing and submitting a
Software Grant, along with Martin, on behalf of GeoTK and *grant* the code
(or donate it) to the Apache Software Fondation. That cleans up the IP, and
establishes a direct line of provenance.
Our software grant is here:
http://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt
Thanks and looking forward to continuing this discussion with you and Martin.
Cheers,
Chris
On Aug 4, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> This is unfortunate Martin as we have spent several days towards
> working with sis-dev on your behalf.
>
> I will leave the sis-dev list to decide how they wish to engage us on
> this topic.
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 04/08/2012, at 7:58 PM, Martin Desruisseaux
> <ma...@geomatys.fr> wrote:
>
>> Hello Jody
>>
>> Le 04/08/12 10:38, Jody Garnett a écrit :
>>> I am acting on your original request to geotools-devel; if you wish to withdraw that request you may do so.
>> You mean send an email on geotools-devel? You are right, I should have
>> done so... Sorry for having neglected that (I posted the withdrawn of
>> request #2 only on the OSGeo list). I will post on geotools-devel today.
>>
>>> The GeoTools project enjoys working with several apache dependencies, and is not against setting up a procedure to support your request to dual license files as per your original request.
>> Maybe the procedure can continue as someone's else request if you wish?
>> On our side, we though that the request #1 to OSGeo would be a good fit
>> for our needs. It leaves to GeoTools more time and freedom about the
>> request #2, since it would now be an independent procedure.
>>
>> Martin
>>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by Adam Estrada <es...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jody,
Thanks a lot for getting the ball rolling on your end with OSGeo. As I've
mentioned before, I am personally very pleased to see so much community
interest in building out an Apache-licensed Geospatial API. The potential
here is unlimited and with the big data craze having so much involvement
with the other Apache projects, true spatial support is a natural
progression.
Cheers,
Adam
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Jody Garnett <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is unfortunate Martin as we have spent several days towards
> working with sis-dev on your behalf.
>
> I will leave the sis-dev list to decide how they wish to engage us on
> this topic.
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 04/08/2012, at 7:58 PM, Martin Desruisseaux
> <ma...@geomatys.fr> wrote:
>
> > Hello Jody
> >
> > Le 04/08/12 10:38, Jody Garnett a écrit :
> >> I am acting on your original request to geotools-devel; if you wish to
> withdraw that request you may do so.
> > You mean send an email on geotools-devel? You are right, I should have
> > done so... Sorry for having neglected that (I posted the withdrawn of
> > request #2 only on the OSGeo list). I will post on geotools-devel today.
> >
> >> The GeoTools project enjoys working with several apache dependencies,
> and is not against setting up a procedure to support your request to dual
> license files as per your original request.
> > Maybe the procedure can continue as someone's else request if you wish?
> > On our side, we though that the request #1 to OSGeo would be a good fit
> > for our needs. It leaves to GeoTools more time and freedom about the
> > request #2, since it would now be an independent procedure.
> >
> > Martin
> >
>
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by Martin Desruisseaux <ma...@geomatys.fr>.
Le 04/08/12 12:51, Jody Garnett a écrit :
> This is unfortunate Martin as we have spent several days towards
> working with sis-dev on your behalf.
We tried to make clear one week ago that we wanted to separate the two
requests [1]. We announced soon after that our wish to focus on the
question of Contributor's right and explicitly withdrawn the request
about the other contributions [2] (note that Ben is also a member of the
GeoTools community). And you were in copy of the private discussion we
had with the OSGeo director (Arnulf) on this topic.
Admittedly we posted on the OSGeo mailing list, which is where the
discussion took place. The geotools-devel list has been silent on this
topic. But I have no problem posting on geotools-devel too if required.
Martin
[1] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2012-July/009920.html
[2] http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/2012-July/009928.html
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by Jody Garnett <jo...@gmail.com>.
This is unfortunate Martin as we have spent several days towards
working with sis-dev on your behalf.
I will leave the sis-dev list to decide how they wish to engage us on
this topic.
--
Jody Garnett
On 04/08/2012, at 7:58 PM, Martin Desruisseaux
<ma...@geomatys.fr> wrote:
> Hello Jody
>
> Le 04/08/12 10:38, Jody Garnett a écrit :
>> I am acting on your original request to geotools-devel; if you wish to withdraw that request you may do so.
> You mean send an email on geotools-devel? You are right, I should have
> done so... Sorry for having neglected that (I posted the withdrawn of
> request #2 only on the OSGeo list). I will post on geotools-devel today.
>
>> The GeoTools project enjoys working with several apache dependencies, and is not against setting up a procedure to support your request to dual license files as per your original request.
> Maybe the procedure can continue as someone's else request if you wish?
> On our side, we though that the request #1 to OSGeo would be a good fit
> for our needs. It leaves to GeoTools more time and freedom about the
> request #2, since it would now be an independent procedure.
>
> Martin
>
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by Jody Garnett <jo...@gmail.com>.
I am acting on your original request to geotools-devel; if you wish to withdraw that request you may do so.
The GeoTools project enjoys working with several apache dependencies, and is not against setting up a procedure to support your request to dual license files as per your original request.
--
Jody Garnett
On Saturday, 4 August 2012 at 6:30 PM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Hello Jody
>
> Le 04/08/12 08:47, Jody Garnett a écrit :
> > We have a change proposal up, outlining what we hope is nice way for GeoTK to move forward:
> > - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Dual+License+Request
> >
>
>
> Thanks for this proposal. Just to clarify, there is in fact two
> different aspects to this re-licensing request, both of them concerning
> different boards:
>
> 1. Clarify the contributor's right over their own contributions.
> Andrian, who wrote the Copyright Assignment with a Lawyer, told us
> that the intend was to give unrestricted rights to the contributors,
> including re-licensing provided that all other contributions are
> removed. This question is under OSGeo's responsibility, which is
> expected to take a decision August 9.
> 2. Inclusion of some other contributions in the re-licensing, in order
> to avoid us the effort of removing/rewriting some code based on
> Subversion history. This point is under GeoTools PMC's responsibility.
>
>
> We originally asked for both 1 and 2, but later on we had withdrawn the
> request 2 on the basis that the amount of code to remove/rewrite is
> sufficiently small, that asking only for 1 would be presumably easier,
> and that making the two projects more distinct may not be bad after all.
> In any cases, we need to wait for OSGeo decision anyway (we think that a
> clarification of request 1 is of wider scope than just GeoTools/Geotk),
> and then we will hopefully have a clearer picture of the possibilities.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin
Re: Exploring possible contribution
Posted by Martin Desruisseaux <ma...@geomatys.fr>.
Hello Jody
Le 04/08/12 08:47, Jody Garnett a écrit :
> We have a change proposal up, outlining what we hope is nice way for GeoTK to move forward:
> - http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Dual+License+Request
Thanks for this proposal. Just to clarify, there is in fact two
different aspects to this re-licensing request, both of them concerning
different boards:
1. Clarify the contributor's right over their own contributions.
Andrian, who wrote the Copyright Assignment with a Lawyer, told us
that the intend was to give unrestricted rights to the contributors,
including re-licensing provided that all other contributions are
removed. This question is under OSGeo's responsibility, which is
expected to take a decision August 9.
2. Inclusion of some other contributions in the re-licensing, in order
to avoid us the effort of removing/rewriting some code based on
Subversion history. This point is under GeoTools PMC's responsibility.
We originally asked for both 1 and 2, but later on we had withdrawn the
request 2 on the basis that the amount of code to remove/rewrite is
sufficiently small, that asking only for 1 would be presumably easier,
and that making the two projects more distinct may not be bad after all.
In any cases, we need to wait for OSGeo decision anyway (we think that a
clarification of request 1 is of wider scope than just GeoTools/Geotk),
and then we will hopefully have a clearer picture of the possibilities.
Regards,
Martin