Hi all,
I was just reading the part of the meeting I lost yesterday, and want to make
a simple comment:
<quote>
cholmes Yeah, it's mostly a question of how much people who build on it have
to give back.
jdeolive yeah, that is why i like making WFS and WMS modules GPL
jdeolive and just make the interfaces that are part of the framework LGPL
cholmes One other route we could consider going is dual licensing - GPL, and
perhaps LGPL, Apache, or even a commercial license option to those who
contribute back.
cholmes Like people can build on top of it if they want, they just have to
let us know so they can request a more compatible license.
jdeolive i like that actually
brent is this also something that we should take to the list?
</quote>
So my comment is that I'm fine with whatever license we choose (actually I'm
fine partially because of ignorance of the deep implications of choosing one
over another), but its just that having the core LGPL and plugins GPL would
be a great opportunity for giving back too.
For example, I'm currently doing a CSW2 implementation and I would loved to
base it on geoserver. Client didn't wanted to make it GPL, at least for now,
so I wasn't able of using geoserver
With that model I would been able of basing my project on geoserver and keep
fighting with the client to release the service implementation as OS later.
For example, I'm currently doing a CSW2 implementation and I would loved to base it on geoserver. Client didn't wanted to make it GPL, at least for now, so I wasn't able of using geoserver
With that model I would been able of basing my project on geoserver and keep fighting with the client to release the service implementation as OS later.
And now Chris has two examples of GPL causing trouble Later in the meeting he mentioned not running into
any requests before...
Seriously Gabriel if you run into any issues like this please contact TOPP (holders of the copyright), the community
wants your developer time If it is not too late can you talk to your client about leaving the door open for an
LGPL module?
Chris is doing biz development and may be able to speak to them on our behalf.
Great, this definitley seems to be the licensing scheme everyone is leaning toward. This provides another good motivator for it. Thanks Gabriel.
-Justin
Gabriel Roldán wrote:
Hi all, I was just reading the part of the meeting I lost yesterday, and want to make a simple comment:
<quote>
cholmes Yeah, it's mostly a question of how much people who build on it have to give back.
jdeolive yeah, that is why i like making WFS and WMS modules GPL
jdeolive and just make the interfaces that are part of the framework LGPL
cholmes One other route we could consider going is dual licensing - GPL, and perhaps LGPL, Apache, or even a commercial license option to those who contribute back.
cholmes Like people can build on top of it if they want, they just have to let us know so they can request a more compatible license.
jdeolive i like that actually
brent is this also something that we should take to the list?
</quote>
So my comment is that I'm fine with whatever license we choose (actually I'm fine partially because of ignorance of the deep implications of choosing one over another), but its just that having the core LGPL and plugins GPL would be a great opportunity for giving back too.
For example, I'm currently doing a CSW2 implementation and I would loved to base it on geoserver. Client didn't wanted to make it GPL, at least for now, so I wasn't able of using geoserver
With that model I would been able of basing my project on geoserver and keep fighting with the client to release the service implementation as OS later.
2c.-
Gabriel
--
Justin Deoliveira
The Open Planning Project
jdeolive@anonymised.com
I would like to consider GeoTools and GeoServer for some IBM offerings but it is very difficult to get approval for anything other than the Apache license.
FWIW.
David
At 09:21 AM 5/24/2006, Gabriel Roldán wrote:
Hi all,
I was just reading the part of the meeting I lost yesterday, and want to make
a simple comment:
<quote>
cholmes Yeah, it's mostly a question of how much people who build on it have
to give back.
jdeolive yeah, that is why i like making WFS and WMS modules GPL
jdeolive and just make the interfaces that are part of the framework LGPL
cholmes One other route we could consider going is dual licensing - GPL, and
perhaps LGPL, Apache, or even a commercial license option to those who
contribute back.
cholmes Like people can build on top of it if they want, they just have to
let us know so they can request a more compatible license.
jdeolive i like that actually
brent is this also something that we should take to the list?
</quote>
So my comment is that I'm fine with whatever license we choose (actually I'm
fine partially because of ignorance of the deep implications of choosing one
over another), but its just that having the core LGPL and plugins GPL would
be a great opportunity for giving back too.
For example, I'm currently doing a CSW2 implementation and I would loved to
base it on geoserver. Client didn't wanted to make it GPL, at least for now,
so I wasn't able of using geoserver
With that model I would been able of basing my project on geoserver and keep
fighting with the client to release the service implementation as OS later.
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdk&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
I would like to consider GeoTools and GeoServer for some IBM offerings but it is very difficult to get approval for anything other than the Apache license.
David this is good information to know, I got a proposal for you. I am trying to complete a geotools IP check (anyone can help - please!) and am then
moving in the direction of assigning copyright to OSGEO as part of the incubation process. The reasons boil down to the GeoTools PMC is not really
set up to handle such things and a desire to attract involvement from organizations such as IBM.
If this really is an issue for you can we revisit the license issue in a more formal capacity. I would wait until the IP review is completed, and the current
RnD efforts have died down (everyone is having so much fun right now - lets wait for a release).
If anyone else has sad tales of not being able to invest time and energy into GeoTools for a non technical reason please attend a meeting and speak up,
the GeoTools library is here to work with you, the PMC only facilitate.
Cheers,
Jody
FWIW.
Pardon?
David
At 09:21 AM 5/24/2006, Gabriel Roldán wrote:
Hi all,
I was just reading the part of the meeting I lost yesterday, and want to make
a simple comment:
<quote>
cholmes Yeah, it's mostly a question of how much people who build on it have
to give back.
jdeolive yeah, that is why i like making WFS and WMS modules GPL
jdeolive and just make the interfaces that are part of the framework LGPL
cholmes One other route we could consider going is dual licensing - GPL, and
perhaps LGPL, Apache, or even a commercial license option to those who
contribute back.
cholmes Like people can build on top of it if they want, they just have to
let us know so they can request a more compatible license.
jdeolive i like that actually
brent is this also something that we should take to the list?
</quote>
So my comment is that I'm fine with whatever license we choose (actually I'm
fine partially because of ignorance of the deep implications of choosing one
over another), but its just that having the core LGPL and plugins GPL would
be a great opportunity for giving back too.
For example, I'm currently doing a CSW2 implementation and I would loved to
base it on geoserver. Client didn't wanted to make it GPL, at least for now,
so I wasn't able of using geoserver
With that model I would been able of basing my project on geoserver and keep
fighting with the client to release the service implementation as OS later.
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdk&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=k&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Please note that I am not speaking in any official capacity on behalf of IBM.
IBM, and I expect most commercial software providers, is very concerned about putting its IP portfolio at risk which is a possibility when externally-developed software is mingled with internally-developed software. The various open source licenses have different comfort levels. I will need to check other concerns about copyright and code originality.
I have a number of project ideas where GeoTools and possibly GeoServer would be useful but don't have management commitment to an official plan. As the open source approval process is fairly resource intensive, I haven't pursued this yet, other than the contribution of the DB2 support for GeoTools a year ago.
It would be interesting to know if other commercial software companies are or are considering using GeoTools and GeoServer.
FWIW - "For what its worth"
David
At 09:21 AM 5/24/2006, Jody Garnett wrote:
David Adler wrote:
I would like to consider GeoTools and GeoServer for some IBM offerings but it is very difficult to get approval for anything other than the Apache license.
David this is good information to know, I got a proposal for you. I am trying to complete a geotools IP check (anyone can help - please!) and am then
moving in the direction of assigning copyright to OSGEO as part of the incubation process. The reasons boil down to the GeoTools PMC is not really
set up to handle such things and a desire to attract involvement from organizations such as IBM.
If this really is an issue for you can we revisit the license issue in a more formal capacity. I would wait until the IP review is completed, and the current
RnD efforts have died down (everyone is having so much fun right now - lets wait for a release).
If anyone else has sad tales of not being able to invest time and energy into GeoTools for a non technical reason please attend a meeting and speak up,
the GeoTools library is here to work with you, the PMC only facilitate.
Cheers,
Jody
FWIW.
Pardon?
David
At 09:21 AM 5/24/2006, Gabriel Roldán wrote:
Hi all,
I was just reading the part of the meeting I lost yesterday, and want to make
a simple comment:
<quote>
cholmes Yeah, it's mostly a question of how much people who build on it have
to give back.
jdeolive yeah, that is why i like making WFS and WMS modules GPL
jdeolive and just make the interfaces that are part of the framework LGPL
cholmes One other route we could consider going is dual licensing - GPL, and
perhaps LGPL, Apache, or even a commercial license option to those who
contribute back.
cholmes Like people can build on top of it if they want, they just have to
let us know so they can request a more compatible license.
jdeolive i like that actually
brent is this also something that we should take to the list?
</quote>
So my comment is that I'm fine with whatever license we choose (actually I'm
fine partially because of ignorance of the deep implications of choosing one
over another), but its just that having the core LGPL and plugins GPL would
be a great opportunity for giving back too.
For example, I'm currently doing a CSW2 implementation and I would loved to
base it on geoserver. Client didn't wanted to make it GPL, at least for now,
so I wasn't able of using geoserver
With that model I would been able of basing my project on geoserver and keep
fighting with the client to release the service implementation as OS later.
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdk&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=k&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Please note that I am not speaking in any official capacity on behalf of IBM.
No fear David we understand. Indeed we are more interested in making you happy, you contribute to our project and if this matters to you it matters to us.
IBM, and I expect most commercial software providers, is very concerned about putting its IP portfolio at risk which is a possibility when externally-developed software is mingled with internally-developed software. The various open source licenses have different comfort levels. I will need to check other concerns about copyright and code originality.
Understood, from my standpoint please understand that I am taking steps to address these kind of issues, and it is one of the reasons for my participation in the geotools OSGEO incubation process.
I have a number of project ideas where GeoTools and possibly GeoServer would be useful but don't have management commitment to an official plan. As the open source approval process is fairly resource intensive, I haven't pursued this yet, other than the contribution of the DB2 support for GeoTools a year ago.
David any information you could provide me would be timely, the OSGEO incubation process is supposed to address these kind of concerns. While the information would be initially
useful to OSGEO the geotools codebase would benefit.
It would be interesting to know if other commercial software companies are or are considering using GeoTools and GeoServer.
I have had plenty of under the table inquires, and Refractions is happy to provide support contracts to anyone reading along at home that
does not want to be seen on the public email lists yet
Cheers,
Jody
FWIW - "For what its worth"
David
At 09:21 AM 5/24/2006, Jody Garnett wrote:
David Adler wrote:
I would like to consider GeoTools and GeoServer for some IBM offerings but it is very difficult to get approval for anything other than the Apache license.
David this is good information to know, I got a proposal for you. I am trying to complete a geotools IP check (anyone can help - please!) and am then
moving in the direction of assigning copyright to OSGEO as part of the incubation process. The reasons boil down to the GeoTools PMC is not really
set up to handle such things and a desire to attract involvement from organizations such as IBM.
If this really is an issue for you can we revisit the license issue in a more formal capacity. I would wait until the IP review is completed, and the current
RnD efforts have died down (everyone is having so much fun right now - lets wait for a release).
If anyone else has sad tales of not being able to invest time and energy into GeoTools for a non technical reason please attend a meeting and speak up,
the GeoTools library is here to work with you, the PMC only facilitate.
Cheers,
Jody
FWIW.
Pardon?
David
At 09:21 AM 5/24/2006, Gabriel Roldán wrote:
Hi all,
I was just reading the part of the meeting I lost yesterday, and want to make
a simple comment:
<quote>
cholmes Yeah, it's mostly a question of how much people who build on it have
to give back.
jdeolive yeah, that is why i like making WFS and WMS modules GPL
jdeolive and just make the interfaces that are part of the framework LGPL
cholmes One other route we could consider going is dual licensing - GPL, and
perhaps LGPL, Apache, or even a commercial license option to those who
contribute back.
cholmes Like people can build on top of it if they want, they just have to
let us know so they can request a more compatible license.
jdeolive i like that actually
brent is this also something that we should take to the list?
</quote>
So my comment is that I'm fine with whatever license we choose (actually I'm
fine partially because of ignorance of the deep implications of choosing one
over another), but its just that having the core LGPL and plugins GPL would
be a great opportunity for giving back too.
For example, I'm currently doing a CSW2 implementation and I would loved to
base it on geoserver. Client didn't wanted to make it GPL, at least for now,
so I wasn't able of using geoserver
With that model I would been able of basing my project on geoserver and keep
fighting with the client to release the service implementation as OS later.
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdk&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=k&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
I would like to point out that Spring licence is Apache too … maybe it’s not important but I’m asking myself if can be a problem for the future GeoServer versions.
Please note that I am not speaking in any official capacity on behalf
of IBM.
No fear David we understand. Indeed we are more interested in making you
happy, you contribute to our project and if this matters to you it
matters to us.
IBM, and I expect most commercial software providers, is very
concerned about putting its IP portfolio at risk which is a
possibility when externally-developed software is mingled with
internally-developed software. The various open source licenses have
different comfort levels. I will need to check other concerns about
copyright and code originality.
Understood, from my standpoint please understand that I am taking steps
to address these kind of issues, and it is one of the reasons for my
participation in the geotools OSGEO incubation process.
I have a number of project ideas where GeoTools and possibly GeoServer
would be useful but don’t have management commitment to an official
plan. As the open source approval process is fairly resource
intensive, I haven’t pursued this yet, other than the contribution of
the DB2 support for GeoTools a year ago.
David any information you could provide me would be timely, the OSGEO
incubation process is supposed to address these kind of concerns. While
the information would be initially
useful to OSGEO the geotools codebase would benefit.
It would be interesting to know if other commercial software companies
are or are considering using GeoTools and GeoServer.
I have had plenty of under the table inquires, and Refractions is happy
to provide support contracts to anyone reading along at home that
does not want to be seen on the public email lists yet
Cheers,
Jody
FWIW - “For what its worth”
David
At 09:21 AM 5/24/2006, Jody Garnett wrote:
David Adler wrote:
I would like to consider GeoTools and GeoServer for some IBM
offerings but it is very difficult to get approval for anything
other than the Apache license.
David this is good information to know, I got a proposal for you. I
am trying to complete a geotools IP check (anyone can help - please!)
and am then
moving in the direction of assigning copyright to OSGEO as part of
the incubation process. The reasons boil down to the GeoTools PMC is
not really
set up to handle such things and a desire to attract involvement from
organizations such as IBM.
If this really is an issue for you can we revisit the license issue
in a more formal capacity. I would wait until the IP review is
completed, and the current
RnD efforts have died down (everyone is having so much fun right now
lets wait for a release).
If anyone else has sad tales of not being able to invest time and
energy into GeoTools for a non technical reason please attend a
meeting and speak up,
the GeoTools library is here to work with you, the PMC only facilitate.
Cheers,
Jody
FWIW.
Pardon?
David
At 09:21 AM 5/24/2006, Gabriel Roldán wrote:
Hi all,
I was just reading the part of the meeting I lost yesterday, and
want to make
a simple comment:
cholmes Yeah, it’s mostly a question of how much people who
build on it have
to give back.
jdeolive yeah, that is why i like making WFS and WMS
modules GPL
jdeolive and just make the interfaces that are part
of the framework LGPL
cholmes One other route we could consider going is dual
licensing - GPL, and
perhaps LGPL, Apache, or even a commercial license option to those who
contribute back.
cholmes Like people can build on top of it if they want,
they just have to
let us know so they can request a more compatible license.
jdeolive i like that actually
brent is this also something that we should take to the
list?
So my comment is that I’m fine with whatever license we choose
(actually I’m
fine partially because of ignorance of the deep implications of
choosing one
over another), but its just that having the core LGPL and plugins
GPL would
be a great opportunity for giving back too.
For example, I’m currently doing a CSW2 implementation and I would
loved to
base it on geoserver. Client didn’t wanted to make it GPL, at least
for now,
so I wasn’t able of using geoserver
With that model I would been able of basing my project on geoserver
and keep
fighting with the client to release the service implementation as
OS later.
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting–Without the Cost and
Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat
certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdk&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting–Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat
certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=k&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting–Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
For example, I'm currently doing a CSW2 implementation and I would loved to base it on geoserver. Client didn't wanted to make it GPL, at least for now, so I wasn't able of using geoserver
With that model I would been able of basing my project on geoserver and keep fighting with the client to release the service implementation as OS later.
And now Chris has two examples of GPL causing trouble Later in the meeting he mentioned not running into
any requests before...
Seriously Gabriel if you run into any issues like this please contact TOPP (holders of the copyright), the community
wants your developer time If it is not too late can you talk to your client about leaving the door open for an
LGPL module?
The one problem is that though TOPP is the copyright holder, I don't know that we've done sufficient work to have people sign over the right to change the license. Like we have no committer agreements or any of that. I've been meaning to get better about that, and now would probably be a good opportunity to. TOPP could be fine with having our work go LGPL, but I _think_ we need permission from others who have contributed. So I suppose I should draw up some committer license agreements, and get all the current and past committers to sign them.
Chris
Chris is doing biz development and may be able to speak to them on our behalf.
Jody
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
In a question about open source licenses, I got the following response back from our Open Source Program Director:
The Apache license is much more business-friendly than the LGPL, especially when considering usage in IBM products.
While we have folks who contribute to a number of Linux related projects under GPL and LGPL, most of the open source we consume in SWG products are under the Apache, Eclipse, BSD, and CPL licenses.
I’m also looking into the copyright and code origin issues.
Please note that I am not speaking in any official capacity on behalf of IBM.
No fear David we understand. Indeed we are more interested in making you happy, you contribute to our project and if this matters to you it matters to us.
IBM, and I expect most commercial software providers, is very concerned about putting its IP portfolio at risk which is a possibility when externally-developed software is mingled with internally-developed software. The various open source licenses have different comfort levels. I will need to check other concerns about copyright and code originality.
Understood, from my standpoint please understand that I am taking steps to address these kind of issues, and it is one of the reasons for my participation in the geotools OSGEO incubation process.
I have a number of project ideas where GeoTools and possibly GeoServer would be useful but don’t have management commitment to an official plan. As the open source approval process is fairly resource intensive, I haven’t pursued this yet, other than the contribution of the DB2 support for GeoTools a year ago.
David any information you could provide me would be timely, the OSGEO incubation process is supposed to address these kind of concerns. While the information would be initially
useful to OSGEO the geotools codebase would benefit.
It would be interesting to know if other commercial software companies are or are considering using GeoTools and GeoServer.
I have had plenty of under the table inquires, and Refractions is happy to provide support contracts to anyone reading along at home that
does not want to be seen on the public email lists yet
Cheers,
Jody
FWIW - “For what its worth”
David
At 09:21 AM 5/24/2006, Jody Garnett wrote:
David Adler wrote:
I would like to consider GeoTools and GeoServer for some IBM offerings but it is very difficult to get approval for anything other than the Apache license.
David this is good information to know, I got a proposal for you. I am trying to complete a geotools IP check (anyone can help - please!) and am then
moving in the direction of assigning copyright to OSGEO as part of the incubation process. The reasons boil down to the GeoTools PMC is not really
set up to handle such things and a desire to attract involvement from organizations such as IBM.
If this really is an issue for you can we revisit the license issue in a more formal capacity. I would wait until the IP review is completed, and the current
RnD efforts have died down (everyone is having so much fun right now - lets wait for a release).
If anyone else has sad tales of not being able to invest time and energy into GeoTools for a non technical reason please attend a meeting and speak up,
the GeoTools library is here to work with you, the PMC only facilitate.
Cheers,
Jody
FWIW.
Pardon?
David
At 09:21 AM 5/24/2006, Gabriel Roldán wrote:
Hi all,
I was just reading the part of the meeting I lost yesterday, and want to make
a simple comment:
cholmes Yeah, it’s mostly a question of how much people who build on it have
to give back.
jdeolive yeah, that is why i like making WFS and WMS modules GPL
jdeolive and just make the interfaces that are part of the framework LGPL
cholmes One other route we could consider going is dual licensing - GPL, and
perhaps LGPL, Apache, or even a commercial license option to those who
contribute back.
cholmes Like people can build on top of it if they want, they just have to
let us know so they can request a more compatible license.
jdeolive i like that actually
brent is this also something that we should take to the list?
So my comment is that I’m fine with whatever license we choose (actually I’m
fine partially because of ignorance of the deep implications of choosing one
over another), but its just that having the core LGPL and plugins GPL would
be a great opportunity for giving back too.
For example, I’m currently doing a CSW2 implementation and I would loved to
base it on geoserver. Client didn’t wanted to make it GPL, at least for now,
so I wasn’t able of using geoserver
With that model I would been able of basing my project on geoserver and keep
fighting with the client to release the service implementation as OS later.
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting–Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdk&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting–Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=k&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
Hi Chris, Gabriel, Jody and others,
I'm following this discussion with great interest as it may be of concern to the GeoNetwork opensource project too.
I'd like to see a software bundle coming out at some point that consists of GeoServer and GeoNetwork and would like to be sure they use compatible licenses. I think this is also a very important issue when we try to move these projects into a Java stack within OSGEO with the purpose of building a strong interoperable OpenSDI toolkit.
Ciao,
Jeroen
On May 24, 2006, at 7:01 PM, Chris Holmes wrote:
Jody Garnett wrote:
Gabriel Roldán wrote:
For example, I'm currently doing a CSW2 implementation and I would loved to base it on geoserver. Client didn't wanted to make it GPL, at least for now, so I wasn't able of using geoserver
With that model I would been able of basing my project on geoserver and keep fighting with the client to release the service implementation as OS later.
And now Chris has two examples of GPL causing trouble Later in the meeting he mentioned not running into
any requests before...
Seriously Gabriel if you run into any issues like this please contact TOPP (holders of the copyright), the community
wants your developer time If it is not too late can you talk to your client about leaving the door open for an
LGPL module?
The one problem is that though TOPP is the copyright holder, I don't know that we've done sufficient work to have people sign over the right to change the license. Like we have no committer agreements or any of that. I've been meaning to get better about that, and now would probably be a good opportunity to. TOPP could be fine with having our work go LGPL, but I _think_ we need permission from others who have contributed. So I suppose I should draw up some committer license agreements, and get all the current and past committers to sign them.
Chris
Chris is doing biz development and may be able to speak to them on our behalf.
Jody
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid7521&bid$8729&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Hi Gabriel,
Do you know that CSW 2 (based on the ISO profile with ISO19115 validated against 19139 schemas) implementation is close to completion in alpha on GeoNetwork? In the CVS head you can find all the code + a Java client to test. It could be interesting to see if a WFS could be filtered for metadata that is than indexed by GeoNetwork? Otherwise, how do you see a WFS - CSW2 combination? What should it provide?
Ciao,
Jeroen
On May 24, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Gabriel Roldán wrote:
For example, I’m currently doing a CSW2 implementation and I would loved to
base it on geoserver. Client didn’t wanted to make it GPL, at least for now,
so I wasn’t able of using geoserver
With that model I would been able of basing my project on geoserver and keep
fighting with the client to release the service implementation as OS later.
Later in the meeting he mentioned not running into