Hi Jeff,
As president of OSGeo I've seen in you some admirable qualities. You
regularly travel around the world, talking passionately and eloquently
about OSGeo and Open Source. You monitor and contribute to many email
lists. For people "in the back row of OSGeo" you do a great job of
encourag
Thanks Sandro for the useful link,
I am all on cutting down inflammatory language. License discussions are
very difficult to navigate as we need to respect others (while disagreeing
with the decisions they have made). Do you think it is worth making an
OSGeo wiki page linking to resources such as
OSGeo vs LocationTech debate aside, I would like to point out that there
are lots of people who make the choice of non-reciprocal licenses over
reciprocal ones, and it is not by "fear" or because they misunderstand
the way FOSS licenses work, it for other reasons that I don't ask
pro-freedom pe
Perhaps it is somewhere in between - this is not simply a "liaison
officer". As a member OSGeo (and OGC for that matter) helps guide the
direction of LocationTech. This is a stronger statement then a MoU.
--
Jody Garnett
On 13 November 2015 at 09:54, Massimiliano Cannata <
massimiliano.cann...@sup
Comments inline:
For me this is a major outrage, but I understand that OSGeo is focused
> on open software, not on free software. (Remember: free includes open,
> open doesn't include free).
>
As mentioned in my other email I am pragmatic, focused on what my customers
want, or what the community
> > I may as well link to my more recent talk (https://vimeo.com/142989259)
> as
>
> Interesting talk Jody, thank you !
>
Glad you enjoyed it, afraid I was a bit punch drunk after a long conference.
> One thing it wasn't clear to me (I might have dreamt it):
> did you say that LocationTech only
On 13 November 2015 at 14:24, Jeff McKenna
wrote:
>
> why would you create a separate
> foundation with the exact same goals, and then later come back to the other
> foundation saying "no, we love you. Give us the right to run your event".
Bang!
Jeff, thank you.
Best regards,
--
Mateusz Losk
Hi Andrea,
You seem to value the OSGeo community so much, so much in fact that you
would smoothly court all 3 of our bidders for OSGeo's only source of
revenue and publicity all year, our beloved global FOSS4G event. It is
true that it is "ridiculous", from an organization that (apparently
f
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:19:20PM +0100, Andrea Ross wrote:
> It is the extra nature beyond other reciprocal licenses like LGPL,
> EPL, and MPL that is the concern.
> I've not heard a different term to describe that aspect.
I think "reciprocal" expresses the concept very well, not sure why
you a
That's actually not true.. Historically I've used Strong copyleft vs. Soft.
Just out if practice. That's a much better term. Thanks for mentioning.
Andrea
On November 13, 2015 1:19:20 PM GMT+01:00, Andrea Ross
wrote:
>Thanks Even. Noted.
>
>As you likely know. It is the extra nature beyond oth
Thanks Even. Noted.
As you likely know. It is the extra nature beyond other reciprocal licenses
like LGPL, EPL, and MPL that is the concern. I've not heard a different term to
describe that aspect. And it goes without saying no offense was intended. I
understand the different perspectives and s
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 11:39:22AM +0100, Andrea Ross wrote:
> It is the viral nature of the GPL & AGPL that keeps projects using
> those licenses out if LocationTech & Eclipse for now.
It is actually LocationTech and Eclipse keeping those projects
out, not any "virus". There's no prescription in
Andrea,
>
> It is the viral nature of the GPL & AGPL
Just as an aside: as for most people a "virus" is something not very
positively connoted, I'd suggest rather refering to the reciprocal or share
alike nature of the license to better describe its intent in a way that
doesn't assume bad inte
Dear Maria,
Hopefully the choice of license for a project, or in this case choices for
licenses by a group of projects are not cause for outrage. Each project will
choose what makes sense to them, and that's a great thing.
This is very common. Apache has chosen the Apache license. Mozilla the M
The collaboration seems to me that OSGeo his a member of LocationTech and
that a liason officier has been appointed.
There has not been defined any obligation, common goals, actions or
objective that are the basis for a collaboration.
So in my opinion a MoU is a pre-requisite for a first step into
I agree, it is always good to collaborate with other organizations, as long
as the collaboration is clear, brings mutual benefits are and there are no
conflictual goals.
Which I think is still a topic for discussion: what is you actual final
aim? How do you want to achieve it?
Maxi
2015-11-13 1
Hi Sandro,
I agree with you. But I understand that people with less experience on
free software are afraid (at the beginning) of freedom. It is a big
step to take from closed software and not everyone is willing/brave
enough to take it. That's why I say that it is understandable. Not
that they are
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:45:23AM +0100, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> And as wrong as they are, if their main focus is on
> bussiness, it is understandable they are afraid of freedom.
I disagree on this point.
I've been make a living out of free software development for over a
decade now, and I
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:41 AM, María Arias de Reyna
wrote:
> I answer myself, yes, they filter by name. And explicitly forbid GPL licenses:
> https://www.locationtech.org/faq-questions-inline
>
> Which licenses does LocationTech allow?
>
> The following licenses are allowed at LocationTech witho
I answer myself, yes, they filter by name. And explicitly forbid GPL licenses:
https://www.locationtech.org/faq-questions-inline
Which licenses does LocationTech allow?
The following licenses are allowed at LocationTech without special approval:
EPL
EDL (BSD)
MIT
Apache v2
Other licenses might
Hi,
Are you sure that is a complete list of what the approved licenses are?
That would be pretty disappointing if they limit by "name" of the license
instead of by "rights".
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Massimiliano Cannata <
massimiliano.cann...@supsi.ch> wrote:
> Sandro,
>
> from https://w
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:23:52AM +0100, Massimiliano Cannata wrote:
> Sandro,
>
> from https://www.locationtech.org/charter in "IP Management" section:
>
> *"... The group will follow the Eclipse Foundation's IP due diligence
> process in order to provide clean open source software released und
Sandro,
from https://www.locationtech.org/charter in "IP Management" section:
*"... The group will follow the Eclipse Foundation's IP due diligence
process in order to provide clean open source software released under
licenses approved by the group and the Eclipse Foundation Board of
Directors. A
Did anyone try the Edgewall (of Trac fame) continuous integration
solution ? Would integrate seamlessly to the OSGeo trac instances.
An example view (of "bitten" itself):
http://bitten.edgewall.org/build/branches-0.6.x
The Bitten white paper:
http://bitten.edgewall.org/wiki/WhitePaper
--strk;
_
24 matches
Mail list logo