To further clarify, - we have decided to NOT release imageio-ext-gdal as part of the 2.5.3 release, we are postponing that to the next release for safety - we are still positive on having imageio-ext-gdal a plugin of geotools, at least for next release; the only real problem, the licensing problem seems to be addressed as of now (see my previous email). - we have decided to adopt dual licensing for imageio-ext since I realized that otherwise it will be quite hard to commit code back to imageio - we have ( I hope so at least) clarified that event though nuclear facilities can blow up we are still safe - we have decide to NOT add imageio-gdal to the plugin pom.xml for the GeoTools for today - I will propose to introduce a maven profile to exclude imageio-ext-gdal from the build so that everyone (?) will be happy. - NOBODY has EVER proposed to copy over some code from the imageio-ext library into geotools. The goal is quite the opposite.
One last thing, I think we should try to come up with something like the lt3xt put together. I am open to suggestions and I am willing to help out. Ciao, Simone. ------------------------------------------------------- Ing. Simone Giannecchini GeoSolutions S.A.S. Owner - Software Engineer Via Carignoni 51 55041 Camaiore (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584983027 fax: +39 0584983027 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://simboss.blogspot.com/ http://www.linkedin.com/in/simonegiannecchini ------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Adrian Custer <acus...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andrea, > > You are probably right, that the clause should be read to restrict > claims against the written code not what can be done with future code. > Your read seems more reasonable than mine and since Simone found other > eyes who went through the same analysis perhaps we can be doubly > reassured. That, then, resolves the concern over the field of use > restriction issue. > > > If there is still an intent and proposal either to have the geotools > build pull in imageio-ext or to integrate altered JAI code to geotools, > then we still need to resolve the advertising clause issue since that > affects all documentation to the project and anyone redistributing it. > > > However, I no longer understand what is going on. Daniele, when I asked > you for an update, it was because I don't understand anymore what you > are proposing---things are changing by the hour. It sounds like you want > to refactor your library, change its licensing, and make it an optional > dependency of Geotools but also want to copy over some code from the > library into geotools. If one of you could write up three sentences as > to how the code next week will be different from the code last week, I > would appreciate the > > > Simone, the page you found at lt3xt was excellent---a good writeup of > all the craziness that goes into affirming the legal standing of a > project. Makes me wish geotools had something that good. > > --adrian > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
