Hi, Greg Troxel wrote:
> If that is meant to apply mainly to drivers with proprietary SDKs, it > looks fine. It's a little hard to tell which things apply to drivers > that don't have proprietary dependencies. I think that even drivers with no proprietary dependencies require a thorough understanding about what they do and how they work and for example what standards they try to implement. It could mean hours or days for a generic GDAL maintainer to make the first bug fix. > For example: > Drivers require a designated responsible contact. > seems perhaps a bit much, perhaps not, for something that is actually Free > Software. The intention of the RFC, as I understand it, is to clarify that no new drivers will be accepted without a named maintainer. For a Free Software there is room to live also outside GDAL. > Besides proprietary SDKs being a problem because the users can't read them > and fix bugs, they are also non-portable. I belong to those users who can't read and fix even Free Software but depend on maintainers. -Jukka Rahkonen- _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
