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,
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:c
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
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 contr
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 i
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 occ
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,
F
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 comm
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. La
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.
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.
>
> Ou
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 an
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 improveme
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 t
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
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
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 op
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 chan
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.
>Fro
19 matches
Mail list logo
