On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Chris Holmes 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
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
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,
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.
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 jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks
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,
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
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Frank Warmerdam warmer...@pobox.comwrote:
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
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
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.comwrote:
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
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.
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
On 12 December 2012 09:06, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com 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
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
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
On 12 December 2012 12:36, Ben Caradoc-Davies
ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au 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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
