[Geoserver-devel] Update on Apache Style Contributor Agreement (GSIP-116/GSIP-118)

So I put together the text for GSIP-116 (see the bottom of the page): https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-116

OpenPlans has seen these two agreements so it is okay put them up.

However the long delays, combined with a change of leadership at OpenPlans, has resulted in an alternative being proposed … OSGeo.

Advantages:

  • A bit more reliable tracking paper work (great improvement due to new secretary)
  • Contributor agreement already available, those who signed for GeoTools are already covered
  • Good community vibe
  • More involved with GeoServer than OpenPlans

Cons:

  • A bit more reliable tracking paper work (was hard to check on contributors previous to current secretary)
  • Mixed track record with respect to legal help (in the past our questions have been fielded by FSF)
  • OSgeo has no active management of IP, it is up to us as PSC to check stuff as part of each release

I am going to bash up a proposal as GSIP-118 now (and will mark GSIP-116 as deferred).

Jody Garnett

Here is the proposal:

I kind of like this move, especially as there is less work for the PSC contacting committers. I added in a proposed header change showing what our headers would look like.

···

Jody Garnett

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@anonymised.com> wrote:

So I put together the text for GSIP-116 (see the bottom of the page): https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-116

OpenPlans has seen these two agreements so it is okay put them up.

However the long delays, combined with a change of leadership at OpenPlans, has resulted in an alternative being proposed … OSGeo.

Advantages:

  • A bit more reliable tracking paper work (great improvement due to new secretary)
  • Contributor agreement already available, those who signed for GeoTools are already covered
  • Good community vibe
  • More involved with GeoServer than OpenPlans

Cons:

  • A bit more reliable tracking paper work (was hard to check on contributors previous to current secretary)
  • Mixed track record with respect to legal help (in the past our questions have been fielded by FSF)
  • OSgeo has no active management of IP, it is up to us as PSC to check stuff as part of each release

I am going to bash up a proposal as GSIP-118 now (and will mark GSIP-116 as deferred).

Jody Garnett

+1.

Thank you so much for progressing this, Jody. The change to OSGeo is even better as it simplifies the governance arrangements and will make it easier to persuade corporate types who have already accepted the GeoTools agreement and will not have to do any further due diligence for GeoTools contributions.

And thanks to OpenPlans for agreeing to this change.

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 31/07/14 05:32, Jody Garnett wrote:

Here is the proposal:

* https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-118

I kind of like this move, especially as there is less work for the PSC
contacting committers. I added in a proposed header change showing what
our headers would look like.

Jody Garnett

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@anonymised.com
<mailto:jody.garnett@anonymised.com>> wrote:

    So I put together the text for GSIP-116 (see the bottom of the
    page): https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-116

    OpenPlans has seen these two agreements so it is okay put them up.

    However the long delays, combined with a change of leadership at
    OpenPlans, has resulted in an alternative being proposed ... OSGeo.

    Advantages:
    - A bit more reliable tracking paper work (great improvement due to
    new secretary)
    - Contributor agreement already available, those who signed for
    GeoTools are already covered
    - Good community vibe
    - More involved with GeoServer than OpenPlans

    Cons:
    - A bit more reliable tracking paper work (was hard to check on
    contributors previous to current secretary)
    - Mixed track record with respect to legal help (in the past our
    questions have been fielded by FSF)
    - OSgeo has no active management of IP, it is up to us as PSC to
    check stuff as part of each release

    I am going to bash up a proposal as GSIP-118 now (and will mark
    GSIP-116 as deferred).
    --
    Jody Garnett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls.
Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk

_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com>
Software Engineer
CSIRO Mineral Resources Flagship
Australian Resources Research Centre

Actually if they have already done the OSGeo contributor license thing for GeoTools … they would not have to do anything further for GeoServer.

(There is nothing specific to that agreement to GeoTools, it works for any OSGeo project)

Jody

···

Jody Garnett

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com> wrote:

+1.

Thank you so much for progressing this, Jody. The change to OSGeo is even better as it simplifies the governance arrangements and will make it easier to persuade corporate types who have already accepted the GeoTools agreement and will not have to do any further due diligence for GeoTools contributions.

And thanks to OpenPlans for agreeing to this change.

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 31/07/14 05:32, Jody Garnett wrote:

Here is the proposal:

I kind of like this move, especially as there is less work for the PSC
contacting committers. I added in a proposed header change showing what
our headers would look like.

Jody Garnett

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@anonymised.com

mailto:[jody.garnett@anonymised.com](mailto:jody.garnett@anonymised.com)> wrote:

So I put together the text for GSIP-116 (see the bottom of the
page): https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-116

OpenPlans has seen these two agreements so it is okay put them up.

However the long delays, combined with a change of leadership at
OpenPlans, has resulted in an alternative being proposed … OSGeo.

Advantages:

  • A bit more reliable tracking paper work (great improvement due to
    new secretary)
  • Contributor agreement already available, those who signed for
    GeoTools are already covered
  • Good community vibe
  • More involved with GeoServer than OpenPlans

Cons:

  • A bit more reliable tracking paper work (was hard to check on
    contributors previous to current secretary)
  • Mixed track record with respect to legal help (in the past our
    questions have been fielded by FSF)
  • OSgeo has no active management of IP, it is up to us as PSC to
    check stuff as part of each release

I am going to bash up a proposal as GSIP-118 now (and will mark
GSIP-116 as deferred).

Jody Garnett


Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls.
Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk


Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@anonymised.comsourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel


Ben Caradoc-Davies Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com
Software Engineer
CSIRO Mineral Resources Flagship
Australian Resources Research Centre

Likewise, +1

Cheers
Andrea

···

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com> wrote:

+1.

Thank you so much for progressing this, Jody. The change to OSGeo is
even better as it simplifies the governance arrangements and will make
it easier to persuade corporate types who have already accepted the
GeoTools agreement and will not have to do any further due diligence for
GeoTools contributions.

And thanks to OpenPlans for agreeing to this change.

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 31/07/14 05:32, Jody Garnett wrote:

Here is the proposal:

I kind of like this move, especially as there is less work for the PSC
contacting committers. I added in a proposed header change showing what
our headers would look like.

Jody Garnett

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@anonymised.com

mailto:[jody.garnett@anonymised.com](mailto:jody.garnett@anonymised.com)> wrote:

So I put together the text for GSIP-116 (see the bottom of the
page): https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-116

OpenPlans has seen these two agreements so it is okay put them up.

However the long delays, combined with a change of leadership at
OpenPlans, has resulted in an alternative being proposed … OSGeo.

Advantages:

  • A bit more reliable tracking paper work (great improvement due to
    new secretary)
  • Contributor agreement already available, those who signed for
    GeoTools are already covered
  • Good community vibe
  • More involved with GeoServer than OpenPlans

Cons:

  • A bit more reliable tracking paper work (was hard to check on
    contributors previous to current secretary)
  • Mixed track record with respect to legal help (in the past our
    questions have been fielded by FSF)
  • OSgeo has no active management of IP, it is up to us as PSC to
    check stuff as part of each release

I am going to bash up a proposal as GSIP-118 now (and will mark
GSIP-116 as deferred).

Jody Garnett


Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls.
Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk


Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel


Ben Caradoc-Davies Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com
Software Engineer
CSIRO Mineral Resources Flagship
Australian Resources Research Centre


Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls.
Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk


Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@anonymised.comsts.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

==

GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
http://goo.gl/NWWaa2 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


+1 from me
Regards,
Simone Giannecchini

GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
http://goo.gl/NWWaa2 for more information.

Ing. Simone Giannecchini
@simogeo
Founder/Director

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 333 8128928

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

-------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@anonymised.com> wrote:

Here is the proposal:

* https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-118

I kind of like this move, especially as there is less work for the PSC
contacting committers. I added in a proposed header change showing what our
headers would look like.

Jody Garnett

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@anonymised.com>
wrote:

So I put together the text for GSIP-116 (see the bottom of the page):
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-116

OpenPlans has seen these two agreements so it is okay put them up.

However the long delays, combined with a change of leadership at
OpenPlans, has resulted in an alternative being proposed ... OSGeo.

Advantages:
- A bit more reliable tracking paper work (great improvement due to new
secretary)
- Contributor agreement already available, those who signed for GeoTools
are already covered
- Good community vibe
- More involved with GeoServer than OpenPlans

Cons:
- A bit more reliable tracking paper work (was hard to check on
contributors previous to current secretary)
- Mixed track record with respect to legal help (in the past our questions
have been fielded by FSF)
- OSgeo has no active management of IP, it is up to us as PSC to check
stuff as part of each release

I am going to bash up a proposal as GSIP-118 now (and will mark GSIP-116
as deferred).
--
Jody Garnett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls.
Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

And +1 from me.

Notice: This email and any attachments are confidential.
If received in error please destroy and immediately notify us.
Do not copy or disclose the contents.

Okay we have gotten back an answer from everyone … except our friend Alessio who is away. So with broad agreement here I would like to consider this one passed and see if we can get the paperwork done promptly.

Thanks again.
Jody

···

Jody Garnett

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@anonymised.com> wrote:

So I put together the text for GSIP-116 (see the bottom of the page): https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-116

OpenPlans has seen these two agreements so it is okay put them up.

However the long delays, combined with a change of leadership at OpenPlans, has resulted in an alternative being proposed … OSGeo.

Advantages:

  • A bit more reliable tracking paper work (great improvement due to new secretary)
  • Contributor agreement already available, those who signed for GeoTools are already covered
  • Good community vibe
  • More involved with GeoServer than OpenPlans

Cons:

  • A bit more reliable tracking paper work (was hard to check on contributors previous to current secretary)
  • Mixed track record with respect to legal help (in the past our questions have been fielded by FSF)
  • OSgeo has no active management of IP, it is up to us as PSC to check stuff as part of each release

I am going to bash up a proposal as GSIP-118 now (and will mark GSIP-116 as deferred).

Jody Garnett

Hi,

I have been away too, but now:

+1

-Jukka Rahkonen-

···

Lähettäjä: Jody Garnett [mailto:jody.garnett@…403…]
Lähetetty: 31. heinäkuuta 2014 23:59
Vastaanottaja: Geoserver-devel
Aihe: Re: [Geoserver-devel] Update on Apache Style Contributor Agreement (GSIP-116/GSIP-118)

Okay we have gotten back an answer from everyone … except our friend Alessio who is away. So with broad agreement here I would like to consider this one passed and see if we can get the paperwork done promptly.

Thanks again.

Jody

Jody Garnett

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@…403…> wrote:

So I put together the text for GSIP-116 (see the bottom of the page): https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-116

OpenPlans has seen these two agreements so it is okay put them up.

However the long delays, combined with a change of leadership at OpenPlans, has resulted in an alternative being proposed … OSGeo.

Advantages:

  • A bit more reliable tracking paper work (great improvement due to new secretary)

  • Contributor agreement already available, those who signed for GeoTools are already covered

  • Good community vibe

  • More involved with GeoServer than OpenPlans

Cons:

  • A bit more reliable tracking paper work (was hard to check on contributors previous to current secretary)

  • Mixed track record with respect to legal help (in the past our questions have been fielded by FSF)

  • OSgeo has no active management of IP, it is up to us as PSC to check stuff as part of each release

I am going to bash up a proposal as GSIP-118 now (and will mark GSIP-116 as deferred).

Jody Garnett

Jody,

I looked at the signed agreement that we got through our legal department and ... you are absolutely right! There is nothing specific to GeoTools in that agreement and it appears to me that it can be used for any OSGeo contributions, including GeoServer once copyright is transferred to OSGeo.

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 31/07/14 10:47, Jody Garnett wrote:

Actually if they have already done the OSGeo contributor license thing
for GeoTools ... they would not have to do *anything* further for GeoServer.

(There is nothing specific to that agreement to GeoTools, it works for
any OSGeo project)

Jody

Jody Garnett

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Ben Caradoc-Davies
<Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com <mailto:Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com>> wrote:

    +1.

    Thank you so much for progressing this, Jody. The change to OSGeo is
    even better as it simplifies the governance arrangements and will
    make it easier to persuade corporate types who have already accepted
    the GeoTools agreement and will not have to do any further due
    diligence for GeoTools contributions.

    And thanks to OpenPlans for agreeing to this change.

    Kind regards,
    Ben.

    On 31/07/14 05:32, Jody Garnett wrote:

        Here is the proposal:

        * https://github.com/geoserver/__geoserver/wiki/GSIP-118
        <https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-118&gt;

        I kind of like this move, especially as there is less work for
        the PSC
        contacting committers. I added in a proposed header change
        showing what
        our headers would look like.

        Jody Garnett

        On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Jody Garnett
        <jody.garnett@anonymised.com <mailto:jody.garnett@anonymised.com>
        <mailto:jody.garnett@anonymised.com
        <mailto:jody.garnett@anonymised.com>__>> wrote:

             So I put together the text for GSIP-116 (see the bottom of the
             page):
        https://github.com/geoserver/__geoserver/wiki/GSIP-116
        <https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-116&gt;

             OpenPlans has seen these two agreements so it is okay put
        them up.

             However the long delays, combined with a change of
        leadership at
             OpenPlans, has resulted in an alternative being proposed
        ... OSGeo.

             Advantages:
             - A bit more reliable tracking paper work (great
        improvement due to
             new secretary)
             - Contributor agreement already available, those who signed for
             GeoTools are already covered
             - Good community vibe
             - More involved with GeoServer than OpenPlans

             Cons:
             - A bit more reliable tracking paper work (was hard to check on
             contributors previous to current secretary)
             - Mixed track record with respect to legal help (in the
        past our
             questions have been fielded by FSF)
             - OSgeo has no active management of IP, it is up to us as
        PSC to
             check stuff as part of each release

             I am going to bash up a proposal as GSIP-118 now (and will mark
             GSIP-116 as deferred).
             --
             Jody Garnett

        ------------------------------__------------------------------__------------------
        Infragistics Professional
        Build stunning WinForms apps today!
        Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls.
        Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
        http://pubads.g.doubleclick.__net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&__iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
        <http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk&gt;

        _________________________________________________
        Geoserver-devel mailing list
        Geoserver-devel@anonymised.com
        <mailto:Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
        https://lists.sourceforge.net/__lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
        <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel&gt;

    --
    Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com>
    Software Engineer
    CSIRO Mineral Resources Flagship
    Australian Resources Research Centre

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com>
Software Engineer
CSIRO Mineral Resources Flagship
Australian Resources Research Centre

The paperwork has now been sent in, so we should be able to update the headers. I would kind of like to do this promptly so they same change can be applied to both master and 2.6.x.

Not sure how much divergence we have going on, it may be easier to search and replace 2.5.x (and we can retire 2.4.x now, no need to update it).