IBM expressed a concern over a *lack* of agreement previously, and over
inconstant header files at the time. Both these issues have since been
resolved.
But it is hard to know, since often open source projects are evaluated for a
specific use, and the thought of entering discussion does not occur.
For reference here is the code contribution agreement provided by apache:
- http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
- http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
(for more detail http://www.apache.org/licenses/ )
Personally I find the individual agreement above to be clear (especially around
copyright and patent contribution).
--
Jody Garnett
On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 1:12 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> Folks,
> To be clear we are talking about the contribution agreement, not licences.
> I believe the apache agreement was suggested but I am sure there are other
> possibilities if needed.
> I am curious if any other large organizations have expressed concerns with
> the current agreement.
> Best regards,
> Frank
> On Jan 29, 2013 5:50 PM, "Michael Bedward" <[email protected]
> (mailto:[email protected])> wrote:
> > If the Google lawyer(s) could provide a list of some OS licences that
> > are currently in favour for collaborative work, then there would be
> > some context for discussion between the GeoTools PMC and the OSGeo
> > Board.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > On 30 January 2013 12:26, Jody Garnett <[email protected]
> > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote:
> > > Thanks for facilitating communication Frank - even for a disappointing
> > > result. Indeed this latest feedback is more harsh than the previous "scope
> > > of project not well defined".
> > >
> > > One of the reasons we have a contribution agreement is to help us reach
> > > out
> > > to larger organisations such as Google. Last time we got this feedback was
> > > from IBM, resulting in us pursuing the line of work that led to the
> > > current
> > > contribution agreement. Indeed I think we started with apache contribution
> > > agreement as a model and revised with the FSF Europe (as they were willing
> > > to talk to us).
> > >
> > > If this agreement is not doing the job action is no-doubt required.
> > > Especially as this contribution agreement is held up as a template for
> > > other OSGeo projects to follow.
> > >
> > > However, this is very much a case where we are not lawyers and are not in
> > > position to rework / reword an agreement on our own. We best bring this up
> > > as an issue with the OSGeo board.
> > >
> > > I understand your contact does not want to provide specifics, in part as
> > > that would be "free" advice. It is difficult to determine if the
> > > recommendation of "apache agreement" is simply leverage an agreement that
> > > has withstood courtroom use, or if there is anything "strategic" in our
> > > agreement that raises alarm bells.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jody Garnett
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
