Hi Adrian,
A quick reply since I'm fixing some things to fix the build:
I have already started a removal of the imageio-ext-tiff dependency from the
coverage module and I'm duplicating the required code to the geotiff plugin
which will be the only one depending on the imageio-ext while waiting for a
SUN's fix on the bugged tiff reader.
I'll give you additional feedbacks afterwards.
Regards,
Daniele
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Adrian Custer <acus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 16:37 +0100, Daniele Romagnoli wrote:
> > Hi list,
> > I would like to move the gt-imageio-ext-gdal module from unsupported
> > to plugin module.
>
>
>
> Daniele,
>
>
> That I even write this mail, you will take the wrong way. You will
> assume, no doubt, that I am attacking you, that I want GeoSolutions to
> fail, that I am simply taking pleasure in criticizing you, that ... Well
> so be it, perceive my intentions as you will. That is actually,
> profoundly, not my intent but everyone is so paranoid in this community
> that I have given up caring how I am read.
>
> So why do I bother writing this? In a broad sense, my motivation appears
> to be my desire to build a world class geospatial library of free
> software that I can depend on for ecological research and distribute to
> my colleagues and students. In the narrow sense, I suppose I am
> composing this to help myself understand better the bitter taste in my
> mouth tonight so that I may learn from it. It will take me a good few
> hours to write this mail, then I will dwell on it all evening, and
> eventually I may even decide not to send this. Still, I presume I will
> learn about myself in the process.
>
> I also write you to address directly the issues that your recent call
> for a vote and lightning commit of the imageio-ext dependency bring to
> the forefront.
>
>
>
> Since you said your imageio-ext project had hit 1.0.0 yesterday and
> today you called for its inclusion into GeoTools, I took some time out
> from my work this evening to check it out. I wanted to see what a 1.0.0
> number brought to the code, and see if I would recommend having GeoTools
> depend on it. Not knowing the code, I opened files perfectly randomly.
> The first was a utility class (seems like a good place to start, no?)
> which contained only static methods but had a chaotic view of
> inheritance: it's not final but not instantiable and then has some
> public, some private and some package-protected methods. Okay, that's
> not a blocker problem but suggests a lack of care or understanding. The
> second class I opened, lists only Martin as the author but is taken into
> your namespace and has two separate headers for the same license. Seems
> weird, again not a blocker but suggesting a lack of care and confusion
> about licensing. The third class I opened has a Sun header which imposes
> additional restrictions beyond the LGPL on all subsequent distributors
> and has an (L)GPL incompatible field-of-use restriction. My review had
> only hit three classes and I had struck out. I conclude that GeoTools
> and its derivatives legally cannot depend on your imageio-ext library
> until the license issues have been resolved and that, at that point, we
> would be well advised to look more deeply at the code to assess its
> quality.
>
> You will remember that I raised the issue of the Sun license
> incompatibility several months ago. At that time, I took a similar brief
> look at the project's code and discovered a similar (the same?) header.
> (Maybe it's just this class, have you taken lots of code from Sun?) At
> that point you suggested that I should (1) list the problematic classes
> and (2) propose fixes to the code. That is not my job, not my project,
> and clearly not a task that falls on my shoulders. I have done enough
> work in the licensing area to last me for quite a while.
>
>
>
> Aside from that, to my chagrin, you have bulldozed your proposal into
> reality. After a long phone call helping another member of our
> community, I turn around to find you have, a mere two hours after
> calling for a vote, committed our project to your new dependency, to
> this new course, and to all the issues that will entail. I am surprised.
> I find it surprisingly disrespectful to not even wait for one spin of
> the globe to see if anyone in Australia, anyone busy this afternoon, or
> anyone away lying sick in bed would have anything to add. But perhaps
> you did not really want any opinion, but rather seeking an excuse to
> commit. If so, it seems silly to make a show of asking the community for
> their opinion but then committing before any productive opinion could
> possibly have offered. If you don't actually want any opinion, then save
> yourself the trouble of asking for it. Now, I don't actually assume that
> you did any of this to be disrespectful intentionally; I merely think
> that you want to integrate your code as a direct dependency of Geotools,
> no matter the opinion of anyone else.
>
>
>
> So now, I am not sure how to proceed. Do you have any suggestions about
> resolving the legal situation with regards to the Sun copyright code? Do
> you not care? Do you care and have no time to resolve it? Do you have
> any other ideas? I know what I will need to do to keep my code legally
> distributable but I am not sure if I need to do this completely outside
> the SVN.
>
> Aside from that practical issue, your work today has left a bitter
> feeling in my mouth and given me less energy to keep arguing with my
> local community that geotools the project is worth the struggle. Do you
> have any suggestions for how we could actually collaborate on this
> project given our different approaches?
>
> sadly,
> --adrian custer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by:
> SourcForge Community
> SourceForge wants to tell your story.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
> _______________________________________________
> Geotools-devel mailing list
> Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Eng. Daniele Romagnoli
Software Engineer
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Carignoni 51
55041 Camaiore (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584983027
fax: +39 0584983027
mob: +39 328 0559267
http://www.geo-solutions.it
-------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
