Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
Found an example of another project playing a similar game, indeed they have a nice write up explaining what this stuff is about. - https://www.qubit-toolkit.org/wiki/Contribute_code -- Jody Garnett On Friday, 1 February 2013 at 10:17 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: > I will do up a proposal then, no sense beating around the bush. Perhaps this > could of cut down some of our earlier contribution agreement madness last > year :D > > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On Friday, 1 February 2013 at 3:02 AM, Andrea Aime wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Chris Holmes > (mailto:chol...@opengeo.org)> wrote: > > > I'm very concerned by this too. It sucks to not get contributions from > > > Google. But it's even worse as an indicator of things that may scare off > > > others who are similar. > > > > > > I'd be very much in favor of just using the Apache one, and moving to it > > > quickly. To reiterate for all, this is just for the contribution > > > agreement. We could adapt the Apache one to so it assigns copyright to > > > LGPL pretty easily I imagine. So we're not talking about changing the > > > license, just the way the license gets assigned to GeoTools. > > > > Pretty much agree, very much +1 on this one > > > > Cheers > > Andrea > > > > > > > > -- > > == > > Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more > > information. > > == > > > > Ing. Andrea Aime > > @geowolf > > Technical Lead > > > > GeoSolutions S.A.S. > > Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 > > 55054 Massarosa (LU) > > Italy > > phone: +39 0584 962313 > > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > > mob: +39 339 8844549 > > > > http://www.geo-solutions.it > > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > > > --- > > -- > > 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 > > GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > (mailto:GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net) > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > > > > > > > > -- 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 GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
I will do up a proposal then, no sense beating around the bush. Perhaps this could of cut down some of our earlier contribution agreement madness last year :D -- Jody Garnett On Friday, 1 February 2013 at 3:02 AM, Andrea Aime wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Chris Holmes (mailto:chol...@opengeo.org)> wrote: > > I'm very concerned by this too. It sucks to not get contributions from > > Google. But it's even worse as an indicator of things that may scare off > > others who are similar. > > > > I'd be very much in favor of just using the Apache one, and moving to it > > quickly. To reiterate for all, this is just for the contribution agreement. > > We could adapt the Apache one to so it assigns copyright to LGPL pretty > > easily I imagine. So we're not talking about changing the license, just the > > way the license gets assigned to GeoTools. > > Pretty much agree, very much +1 on this one > > Cheers > Andrea > > > > -- > == > Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more > information. > == > > Ing. Andrea Aime > @geowolf > Technical Lead > > GeoSolutions S.A.S. > Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 > 55054 Massarosa (LU) > Italy > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 339 8844549 > > http://www.geo-solutions.it > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > --- > -- > 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 > GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net > (mailto:GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net) > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > > -- 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 GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Chris Holmes wrote: > I'm very concerned by this too. It sucks to not get contributions from > Google. But it's even worse as an indicator of things that may scare off > others who are similar. > > I'd be very much in favor of just using the Apache one, and moving to it > quickly. To reiterate for all, this is just for the contribution agreement. > We could adapt the Apache one to so it assigns copyright to LGPL pretty > easily I imagine. So we're not talking about changing the license, just the > way the license gets assigned to GeoTools. > Pretty much agree, very much +1 on this one Cheers Andrea -- == Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- -- 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 GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
I'm very concerned by this too. It sucks to not get contributions from Google. But it's even worse as an indicator of things that may scare off others who are similar. I'd be very much in favor of just using the Apache one, and moving to it quickly. To reiterate for all, this is just for the contribution agreement. We could adapt the Apache one to so it assigns copyright to LGPL pretty easily I imagine. So we're not talking about changing the license, just the way the license gets assigned to GeoTools. C On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Andrea Aime wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> I have finally got a clear response back from our internal legal >> reviewer to my request to offer refinement to the text of the GeoTools >> contributor agreement. He indicated that the agreement has multiple >> issues, and that it couldn't be easily corrected to meet our >> (Google's) expectations. He suggested we might want to start over >> with a stock agreement such as Apache's. >> > > You mean, this one? > http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt > > >> >> I'm not interested in pushing a complete rework of the contribution >> agreement, so at this point I am letting the matter drop and it >> appears that Google will not be a significant contributor to GeoTools. >> I'm rather bummed. >> > > So am I. If the licence was the issue, I could understand, but being > blocked by the contributor agreement itself I find rather worrysome. > I believe we should at least consider using the Apache one. > > Cheers > Andrea > > -- > == > Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more > information. > == > > Ing. Andrea Aime > @geowolf > Technical Lead > > GeoSolutions S.A.S. > Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 > 55054 Massarosa (LU) > Italy > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 339 8844549 > > http://www.geo-solutions.it > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > --- > > > -- > 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 > GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > > -- 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 GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote: > Folks, > > I have finally got a clear response back from our internal legal > reviewer to my request to offer refinement to the text of the GeoTools > contributor agreement. He indicated that the agreement has multiple > issues, and that it couldn't be easily corrected to meet our > (Google's) expectations. He suggested we might want to start over > with a stock agreement such as Apache's. > You mean, this one? http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt > > I'm not interested in pushing a complete rework of the contribution > agreement, so at this point I am letting the matter drop and it > appears that Google will not be a significant contributor to GeoTools. > I'm rather bummed. > So am I. If the licence was the issue, I could understand, but being blocked by the contributor agreement itself I find rather worrysome. I believe we should at least consider using the Apache one. Cheers Andrea -- == Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- -- 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 GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
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" (mailto:michael.bedw...@gmail.com)> 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 > (mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com)> 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 GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
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" 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 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 GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
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 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 GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
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 On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 11:30 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote: > Folks, > > I have finally got a clear response back from our internal legal > reviewer to my request to offer refinement to the text of the GeoTools > contributor agreement. He indicated that the agreement has multiple > issues, and that it couldn't be easily corrected to meet our > (Google's) expectations. He suggested we might want to start over > with a stock agreement such as Apache's. > > I'm not interested in pushing a complete rework of the contribution > agreement, so at this point I am letting the matter drop and it > appears that Google will not be a significant contributor to GeoTools. > I'm rather bummed. > > If other companies come to a similar conclusion then it might be worth > rethinking the agreement. If this is just a peculiarity of Google > then I think you can just write us off as outliers. > > Best regards, > Frank > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Andrea Aime > mailto:andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it)> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Jody Garnett > (mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com)> > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for contacting us Frank, we have not had any feedback to this > > > effect previously. > > > > > > I am sure we can tightening up the language in the CLA, and could issue a > > > new version of the document following our usual change procedure. > > > > > > Our project is "open" allowing you to assemble a "proposal" to change the > > > wording (as outlined in the developers guide). You do not have to be a > > > member of the project steering committee to make a proposal. This would > > > also > > > give your legal department something to review prior to us issuing a new > > > copy of the document. In this particular case we will need to assemble a > > > document, and then pass it to the OSGeo board for final approval (as OSGeo > > > is the legal entity effected). > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with the idea. It's easier for us to tell you if something cooked up > > by a lawyer team defines Geotools than try to give > > you a definition that would suit lawyers. > > Hopefully the material on the GeoTools web site and this discussion helps > > clarify what we feel GeoTools is > > > > Cheers > > Andrea > > > > -- > > == > > Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more > > information. > > == > > > > Ing. Andrea Aime > > @geowolf > > Technical Lead > > > > GeoSolutions S.A.S. > > Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 > > 55054 Massarosa (LU) > > Italy > > phone: +39 0584 962313 > > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > > mob: +39 339 8844549 > > > > http://www.geo-solutions.it > > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > > > --- > > > > -- > ---+-- > I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com > (mailto:warmer...@pobox.com) > light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam > and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Software Developer > > -- 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 GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
Folks, I have finally got a clear response back from our internal legal reviewer to my request to offer refinement to the text of the GeoTools contributor agreement. He indicated that the agreement has multiple issues, and that it couldn't be easily corrected to meet our (Google's) expectations. He suggested we might want to start over with a stock agreement such as Apache's. I'm not interested in pushing a complete rework of the contribution agreement, so at this point I am letting the matter drop and it appears that Google will not be a significant contributor to GeoTools. I'm rather bummed. If other companies come to a similar conclusion then it might be worth rethinking the agreement. If this is just a peculiarity of Google then I think you can just write us off as outliers. Best regards, Frank On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Andrea Aime wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Jody Garnett > wrote: >> >> Thanks for contacting us Frank, we have not had any feedback to this >> effect previously. >> >> I am sure we can tightening up the language in the CLA, and could issue a >> new version of the document following our usual change procedure. >> >> Our project is "open" allowing you to assemble a "proposal" to change the >> wording (as outlined in the developers guide). You do not have to be a >> member of the project steering committee to make a proposal. This would also >> give your legal department something to review prior to us issuing a new >> copy of the document. In this particular case we will need to assemble a >> document, and then pass it to the OSGeo board for final approval (as OSGeo >> is the legal entity effected). > > > I agree with the idea. It's easier for us to tell you if something cooked up > by a lawyer team defines Geotools than try to give > you a definition that would suit lawyers. > Hopefully the material on the GeoTools web site and this discussion helps > clarify what we feel GeoTools is > > Cheers > Andrea > > -- > == > Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more > information. > == > > Ing. Andrea Aime > @geowolf > Technical Lead > > GeoSolutions S.A.S. > Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 > 55054 Massarosa (LU) > Italy > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 339 8844549 > > http://www.geo-solutions.it > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > --- > -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush| Geospatial Software Developer -- 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 GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Jody Garnett wrote: > Thanks for contacting us Frank, we have not had any feedback to this > effect previously. > > I am sure we can tightening up the language in the CLA, and could issue a > new version of the document following our usual change procedure. > > Our project is "open" allowing you to assemble a "proposal" to change the > wording (as outlined in the developers guide). You do not have to be a > member of the project steering committee to make a proposal. This would > also give your legal department something to review prior to us issuing a > new copy of the document. In this particular case we will need to assemble > a document, and then pass it to the OSGeo board for final approval (as > OSGeo is the legal entity effected). > I agree with the idea. It's easier for us to tell you if something cooked up by a lawyer team defines Geotools than try to give you a definition that would suit lawyers. Hopefully the material on the GeoTools web site and this discussion helps clarify what we feel GeoTools is Cheers Andrea -- == Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- -- LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d___ GeoTools-Devel mailing list GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies < ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au> wrote: > On 12/12/12 10:59, Michael Bedward wrote: > > I read their concern as being that the current wording was so open it > > was asking them to sign up to an undefined and possibly moving target. > > Probably any of "software" or "toolkit" or "framework" or "library and > > utilities" etc. would be an improvement. > > I wouldn't drop "Java" from the description. I like the JTS model: a > > reference implementation in Java with ports to other languages managed > > as separate projects. Seems more "agile" :) > > If we kept the "Java" part, would patent grants extend to other languages? > I agree with Michael, if one day we rewrite the library in another language, it will be another library, GeoTools no more. That said, the situation of languages for the VM is so much in flux that I don't see any of the new languages taking over anytime soon. An approach like GeoScript, different library addressing some of the JVM languages (and it's not a case that it's not just one) makes more sense to me. Cheers Andrea -- == Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- -- LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d___ GeoTools-Devel mailing list GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
On 12/12/12 10:59, Michael Bedward wrote: > I read their concern as being that the current wording was so open it > was asking them to sign up to an undefined and possibly moving target. > Probably any of "software" or "toolkit" or "framework" or "library and > utilities" etc. would be an improvement. > I wouldn't drop "Java" from the description. I like the JTS model: a > reference implementation in Java with ports to other languages managed > as separate projects. Seems more "agile" :) If we kept the "Java" part, would patent grants extend to other languages? -- Ben Caradoc-Davies Software Engineer CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering Australian Resources Research Centre -- LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d ___ GeoTools-Devel mailing list GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
On 12 December 2012 12:36, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: > Framework is a bit too generic in my opinion. I think we need to include the > word "software" to make it clear that we are not talking about a physical > thing, which I think, from my reading of Frank's email, is Google's concern. > I read their concern as being that the current wording was so open it was asking them to sign up to an undefined and possibly moving target. Probably any of "software" or "toolkit" or "framework" or "library and utilities" etc. would be an improvement. I wouldn't drop "Java" from the description. I like the JTS model: a reference implementation in Java with ports to other languages managed as separate projects. Seems more "agile" :) Michael -- LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d ___ GeoTools-Devel mailing list GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
We could even say "software" as well. Should we drop "Java"? There might be Python, Javascript, and Scala bits, and more in the future. The Java bit is descriptive, but not definitive. We could go crazy and rewrite it in another language, like a future version of Java (I think you know who I am talking about). :-P "GeoTools open source geospatial software toolkit", perhaps? Framework is a bit too generic in my opinion. I think we need to include the word "software" to make it clear that we are not talking about a physical thing, which I think, from my reading of Frank's email, is Google's concern. Kind regards, -- Ben Caradoc-Davies Software Engineer CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering Australian Resources Research Centre -- LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d ___ GeoTools-Devel mailing list GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
Good idea. I also like our traditional 'toolkit' wording. Perhaps we should ask Frank to provide an example of a project wording google is comfortable with? (This after all an agreement which wants to be specific - rather than a project tag line) We could get all technical and discuss project boundaries in terms of API, standards and so on. -- Jody Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig) On Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 8:53 AM, Michael Bedward wrote: > On 12 December 2012 09:06, Jody Garnett wrote: > > If we stole some of the language from here ( or here ) would it be > > appropriate? Or even just "GeoTools is an open source Java library that > > provides tools for geospatial data." from our website. > > > > The reason the scope of our project is "left open" is to allow for growth. > > Some avenues for growth that are requested on the email list are: > > - Command line access to GeoTools functionality, especially recent process > > work > > - Improved "demo" gt-swing application showcasing GeoTools functionality > > > > Both of these "directions" go a bit beyond just a Java toolkit for spatial > > data, as in fact do the number of client implementations (wfs, wms, wps) > > included currently. > > > > > Hi Jody, > > Change "library" to "framework" in your suggested sentence and I think > most people would see those items as falling easily within it. > > Michael -- LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d___ GeoTools-Devel mailing list GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
On 12 December 2012 09:06, Jody Garnett wrote: > If we stole some of the language from here ( or here ) would it be > appropriate? Or even just "GeoTools is an open source Java library that > provides tools for geospatial data." from our website. > > The reason the scope of our project is "left open" is to allow for growth. > Some avenues for growth that are requested on the email list are: > - Command line access to GeoTools functionality, especially recent process > work > - Improved "demo" gt-swing application showcasing GeoTools functionality > > Both of these "directions" go a bit beyond just a Java toolkit for spatial > data, as in fact do the number of client implementations (wfs, wms, wps) > included currently. > Hi Jody, Change "library" to "framework" in your suggested sentence and I think most people would see those items as falling easily within it. Michael -- LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d ___ GeoTools-Devel mailing list GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
Re: [Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
Thanks for contacting us Frank, we have not had any feedback to this effect previously. I am sure we can tightening up the language in the CLA, and could issue a new version of the document following our usual change procedure. Our project is "open" allowing you to assemble a "proposal" to change the wording (as outlined in the developers guide). You do not have to be a member of the project steering committee to make a proposal. This would also give your legal department something to review prior to us issuing a new copy of the document. In this particular case we will need to assemble a document, and then pass it to the OSGeo board for final approval (as OSGeo is the legal entity effected). IDEAS If we stole some of the language from here (http://geotools.org/about.html) ( or here (http://docs.geotools.org/latest/userguide/geotools.html) ) would it be appropriate? Or even just "GeoTools is an open source Java library that provides tools for geospatial data." from our website. The reason the scope of our project is "left open" is to allow for growth. Some avenues for growth that are requested on the email list are: - Command line access to GeoTools functionality, especially recent process work - Improved "demo" gt-swing application showcasing GeoTools functionality Both of these "directions" go a bit beyond just a Java toolkit for spatial data, as in fact do the number of client implementations (wfs, wms, wps) included currently. -- Jody Garnett On Wednesday, 12 December 2012 at 3:18 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote: > Folks, > > I have been seeking to have Google sign a corporate CLA > to cover contributions to the GeoTools projects so we could > feed back a few existing improvements, and some future > potential improvements. During internal review of the CLA > we have encountered some concerns from our legal staff. > > From our legal representative: > > """ > Google is not willing to sign the agreement as it currently stands due to how > "the project" is currently defined in the agreement. The agreement states > 'The "Project" is the collaborative effort known as the Geotools Project, > currently described at > http://www.geotools.org which initially aims to design and create an open > source Java language library for > the management and analysis of spatial, geographic data.' > > This does not actually define anything in particular, rather it seems > amorphous thing that apparently can be changed (since it's only "currently > described"). It's completely ambiguous what this is (a legal entity, a piece > of software, etc). In turn, this makes it completely indefinite what terms > such as "solely as part of the Geotools Project" mean in the patent grant, > and what "except where exercise of rights in the Contribution as part of the > Geotools Project is > not feasible without such modification or combination." means in the > definition of 'licensed patents'. > > If these were tied to a particular software project, we'd be willing to sign > it. > """ > > I'm going to seek an internal suggestion of a change to > the text, but I wanted to raise the issue here and get > a sense of whether others have encountered similar > issues and if there is any appetite for changes to the CLA. > > For reference, I am pursuing this matter as a Google employee. > > Best regards,-- > ---+-- > I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com > (mailto:warmer...@pobox.com) > light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam > and watch the world go round - Rush| Geospatial Software Developer > > -- > LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial > Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support > Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services > Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers > http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d > > ___ > GeoTools-Devel mailing list > GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net > (mailto:GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net) > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > > -- LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d___ GeoTools-Devel mailing list GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
[Geotools-devel] Contribution Agreement Clarity
Folks, I have been seeking to have Google sign a corporate CLA to cover contributions to the GeoTools projects so we could feed back a few existing improvements, and some future potential improvements. During internal review of the CLA we have encountered some concerns from our legal staff. >From our legal representative: """ Google is not willing to sign the agreement as it currently stands due to how "the project" is currently defined in the agreement. The agreement states 'The "Project" is the collaborative effort known as the Geotools Project, currently described at http://www.geotools.org which initially aims to design and create an open source Java language library for the management and analysis of spatial, geographic data.' This does not actually define anything in particular, rather it seems amorphous thing that apparently can be changed (since it's only "currently described"). It's completely ambiguous what this is (a legal entity, a piece of software, etc). In turn, this makes it completely indefinite what terms such as "solely as part of the Geotools Project" mean in the patent grant, and what "except where exercise of rights in the Contribution as part of the Geotools Project is not feasible without such modification or combination." means in the definition of 'licensed patents'. If these were tied to a particular software project, we'd be willing to sign it. """ I'm going to seek an internal suggestion of a change to the text, but I wanted to raise the issue here and get a sense of whether others have encountered similar issues and if there is any appetite for changes to the CLA. For reference, I am pursuing this matter as a Google employee. Best regards, -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush| Geospatial Software Developer -- LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d___ GeoTools-Devel mailing list GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
