[pgrouting-dev] Licensing for Co-development between OpenGraphRouter and pgRouting

Hi PSC,

I have been talking with Roni about doing more development for OpenGraphRouter and to possible integrate that with pgRouting. The first issue I see is that of licensing. OpenGraphRouter is using an MIT-X style license (and wants to stay that way) and I believe pgRouting is using a GPLv2 License.

So I think this means we can move OpenGraphRouter code into pgRouting, which would make that code dual licensed, ie code used in pgRouting would become GPLv2, but the original in OpenGraphRouter would remain MIT-X, but we could not move pgRouting code into OpenGraphRouter.

One of my goals as we move forward is that code we develop should be have a reference implementation in a command line tool in OpenGraphRouter and a reference implementation with in pgRouting.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thoughts on the licensing issues?

Would there be any interest in supporting a similar dual licensing in pgRouting? This might not be possible because Postgresql/PostGIS licensing.

Frank, Paul, can you comment please.

Thanks,
   -Steve

Hi Steve,

I believe pgRouting is under GPLv3 - I think we changed from v2 last
year. For me GPL/MIT dual licensing looks a bit strange, I mean I
can't imagine a case when one would prefer GPL.

MIT is GPL compatible and I see no problem with PostGIS which is also under GPL.

By the way, we already have GPL/QPL compatibility issue :slight_smile:

Anton.

On 5/27/11, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

Hi PSC,

I have been talking with Roni about doing more development for
OpenGraphRouter and to possible integrate that with pgRouting. The first
issue I see is that of licensing. OpenGraphRouter is using an MIT-X
style license (and wants to stay that way) and I believe pgRouting is
using a GPLv2 License.

So I think this means we can move OpenGraphRouter code into pgRouting,
which would make that code dual licensed, ie code used in pgRouting
would become GPLv2, but the original in OpenGraphRouter would remain
MIT-X, but we could not move pgRouting code into OpenGraphRouter.

One of my goals as we move forward is that code we develop should be
have a reference implementation in a command line tool in
OpenGraphRouter and a reference implementation with in pgRouting.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thoughts on the licensing issues?

Would there be any interest in supporting a similar dual licensing in
pgRouting? This might not be possible because Postgresql/PostGIS licensing.

Frank, Paul, can you comment please.

Thanks,
   -Steve
_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

Hi Steve,

I believe pgRouting is under GPLv3 - I think we changed from v2 last
year. For me GPL/MIT dual licensing looks a bit strange, I mean I
can’t imagine a case when one would prefer GPL.

No, it hasn’t changed.

MIT is GPL compatible and I see no problem with PostGIS which is also under GPL.

By the way, we already have GPL/QPL compatibility issue :slight_smile:

I would like to remove CGAL dependency and just return points for driving distance.
With PostGIS 2.0 there is also support for concave hull. Then CGAL isn’t necessary anymore to calculate the drive time polygon.

Daniel

Anton.

On 5/27/11, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

Hi PSC,

I have been talking with Roni about doing more development for
OpenGraphRouter and to possible integrate that with pgRouting. The first
issue I see is that of licensing. OpenGraphRouter is using an MIT-X
style license (and wants to stay that way) and I believe pgRouting is
using a GPLv2 License.

So I think this means we can move OpenGraphRouter code into pgRouting,
which would make that code dual licensed, ie code used in pgRouting
would become GPLv2, but the original in OpenGraphRouter would remain
MIT-X, but we could not move pgRouting code into OpenGraphRouter.

One of my goals as we move forward is that code we develop should be
have a reference implementation in a command line tool in
OpenGraphRouter and a reference implementation with in pgRouting.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thoughts on the licensing issues?

Would there be any interest in supporting a similar dual licensing in
pgRouting? This might not be possible because Postgresql/PostGIS licensing.

Frank, Paul, can you comment please.

Thanks,
-Steve


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Hi Daniel,

Doesn't this statement
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
assume later (i.e. v3) versions?

I support getting rid of CGAL, but I don't think that PostGIS hulls
fit all possible cases of Driving Distance use.

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl <daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

Hi Steve,

I believe pgRouting is under GPLv3 - I think we changed from v2 last
year. For me GPL/MIT dual licensing looks a bit strange, I mean I
can't imagine a case when one would prefer GPL.

No, it hasn't changed.

MIT is GPL compatible and I see no problem with PostGIS which is also
under
GPL.

By the way, we already have GPL/QPL compatibility issue :slight_smile:

I would like to remove CGAL dependency and just return points for driving
distance.
With PostGIS 2.0 there is also support for concave hull. Then CGAL isn't
necessary anymore to calculate the drive time polygon.

Daniel

Anton.

On 5/27/11, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:
> Hi PSC,
>
> I have been talking with Roni about doing more development for
> OpenGraphRouter and to possible integrate that with pgRouting. The first
> issue I see is that of licensing. OpenGraphRouter is using an MIT-X
> style license (and wants to stay that way) and I believe pgRouting is
> using a GPLv2 License.
>
> So I think this means we can move OpenGraphRouter code into pgRouting,
> which would make that code dual licensed, ie code used in pgRouting
> would become GPLv2, but the original in OpenGraphRouter would remain
> MIT-X, but we could not move pgRouting code into OpenGraphRouter.
>
> One of my goals as we move forward is that code we develop should be
> have a reference implementation in a command line tool in
> OpenGraphRouter and a reference implementation with in pgRouting.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thoughts on the licensing issues?
>
> Would there be any interest in supporting a similar dual licensing in
> pgRouting? This might not be possible because Postgresql/PostGIS
licensing.
>
> Frank, Paul, can you comment please.
>
> Thanks,
> -Steve
> _______________________________________________
> pgrouting-dev mailing list
> pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev
>

--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl
_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

Hi Daniel,

Doesn’t this statement

  • This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  • it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
  • the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
  • (at your option) any later version.
    assume later (i.e. v3) versions?

Well, this doesn’t mean it’s v3, no? It’s the license text of version 2, I think.

I support getting rid of CGAL, but I don’t think that PostGIS hulls
fit all possible cases of Driving Distance use.

http://www.bostongis.com/postgis_concavehull.snippet
It even supports “wholes”, so I think it’s even better.

Maybe worth to discuss this in a new thread, but having Jay and Kishore working on new algorithms, it might be time to think about a function “cleanup” and version pgRouting 2.0. Don’t you agree?

It doesn’t need to be all new, but function names and wrappers could be reorganized, pgRouting could be checked for compatibility with PostGIS 2.0 and Steve’s idea to provide functions that return the “raw data” is also a good idea.

Daniel

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl <daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

Hi Steve,

I believe pgRouting is under GPLv3 - I think we changed from v2 last
year. For me GPL/MIT dual licensing looks a bit strange, I mean I
can’t imagine a case when one would prefer GPL.

No, it hasn’t changed.

MIT is GPL compatible and I see no problem with PostGIS which is also
under
GPL.

By the way, we already have GPL/QPL compatibility issue :slight_smile:

I would like to remove CGAL dependency and just return points for driving
distance.
With PostGIS 2.0 there is also support for concave hull. Then CGAL isn’t
necessary anymore to calculate the drive time polygon.

Daniel

Anton.

On 5/27/11, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

Hi PSC,

I have been talking with Roni about doing more development for
OpenGraphRouter and to possible integrate that with pgRouting. The first
issue I see is that of licensing. OpenGraphRouter is using an MIT-X
style license (and wants to stay that way) and I believe pgRouting is
using a GPLv2 License.

So I think this means we can move OpenGraphRouter code into pgRouting,
which would make that code dual licensed, ie code used in pgRouting
would become GPLv2, but the original in OpenGraphRouter would remain
MIT-X, but we could not move pgRouting code into OpenGraphRouter.

One of my goals as we move forward is that code we develop should be
have a reference implementation in a command line tool in
OpenGraphRouter and a reference implementation with in pgRouting.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thoughts on the licensing issues?

Would there be any interest in supporting a similar dual licensing in
pgRouting? This might not be possible because Postgresql/PostGIS
licensing.

Frank, Paul, can you comment please.

Thanks,
-Steve


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Anyway, what do you think may an advantage of using dual MIT/GPL
license (except of OpenGraphRouter integration)?

Maybe worth to discuss this in a new thread, but having Jay and Kishore working on new algorithms, it might be time to think about a function "cleanup" and version pgRouting 2.0. Don't you agree?

Yep, looks like some job for PSC :slight_smile:

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl <daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

Hi Daniel,

Doesn't this statement
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
* the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
* (at your option) any later version.
assume later (i.e. v3) versions?

Well, this doesn't mean it's v3, no? It's the license text of version 2, I
think.

I support getting rid of CGAL, but I don't think that PostGIS hulls
fit all possible cases of Driving Distance use.

http://www.bostongis.com/postgis_concavehull.snippet
It even supports "wholes", so I think it's even better.

Maybe worth to discuss this in a new thread, but having Jay and Kishore
working on new algorithms, it might be time to think about a function
"cleanup" and version pgRouting 2.0. Don't you agree?

It doesn't need to be all new, but function names and wrappers could be
reorganized, pgRouting could be checked for compatibility with PostGIS 2.0
and Steve's idea to provide functions that return the "raw data" is also a
good idea.

Daniel

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl <daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:
> 2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> I believe pgRouting is under GPLv3 - I think we changed from v2 last
>> year. For me GPL/MIT dual licensing looks a bit strange, I mean I
>> can't imagine a case when one would prefer GPL.
>>
>
> No, it hasn't changed.
>
>
>
>>
>> MIT is GPL compatible and I see no problem with PostGIS which is also
>> under
>> GPL.
>>
>> By the way, we already have GPL/QPL compatibility issue :slight_smile:
>>
>
> I would like to remove CGAL dependency and just return points for
> driving
> distance.
> With PostGIS 2.0 there is also support for concave hull. Then CGAL isn't
> necessary anymore to calculate the drive time polygon.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Anton.
>>
>> On 5/27/11, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:
>> > Hi PSC,
>> >
>> > I have been talking with Roni about doing more development for
>> > OpenGraphRouter and to possible integrate that with pgRouting. The
first
>> > issue I see is that of licensing. OpenGraphRouter is using an MIT-X
>> > style license (and wants to stay that way) and I believe pgRouting is
>> > using a GPLv2 License.
>> >
>> > So I think this means we can move OpenGraphRouter code into
>> > pgRouting,
>> > which would make that code dual licensed, ie code used in pgRouting
>> > would become GPLv2, but the original in OpenGraphRouter would remain
>> > MIT-X, but we could not move pgRouting code into OpenGraphRouter.
>> >
>> > One of my goals as we move forward is that code we develop should be
>> > have a reference implementation in a command line tool in
>> > OpenGraphRouter and a reference implementation with in pgRouting.
>> >
>> > Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thoughts on the licensing
issues?
>> >
>> > Would there be any interest in supporting a similar dual licensing in
>> > pgRouting? This might not be possible because Postgresql/PostGIS
>> licensing.
>> >
>> > Frank, Paul, can you comment please.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > -Steve
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > pgrouting-dev mailing list
>> > pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
>> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
>> Salzmannstraße 44,
>> 81739 München, Germany
>>
>> Anton Patrushev
>> CTO
>>
>> eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
>> Web: http://georepublic.de
>>
>> Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
>> Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de
>>
>> Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
>> CEO: Daniel Kastl
>> _______________________________________________
>> pgrouting-dev mailing list
>> pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
> eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
> Web: http://georepublic.de
>

--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl
_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

Anyway, what do you think may an advantage of using dual MIT/GPL
license (except of OpenGraphRouter integration)?

Maybe worth to discuss this in a new thread, but having Jay and Kishore working on new algorithms, it might be time to think about a function “cleanup” and version pgRouting 2.0. Don’t you agree?

Yep, looks like some job for PSC :slight_smile:

You’re PSC :wink:
I think that thing was a nice try last year, but can’t be really called a success for whatever reason.

Anyway, other thread.

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl <daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

Hi Daniel,

Doesn’t this statement

  • This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  • it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
  • the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
  • (at your option) any later version.
    assume later (i.e. v3) versions?

Well, this doesn’t mean it’s v3, no? It’s the license text of version 2, I
think.

I support getting rid of CGAL, but I don’t think that PostGIS hulls
fit all possible cases of Driving Distance use.

http://www.bostongis.com/postgis_concavehull.snippet
It even supports “wholes”, so I think it’s even better.

Maybe worth to discuss this in a new thread, but having Jay and Kishore
working on new algorithms, it might be time to think about a function
“cleanup” and version pgRouting 2.0. Don’t you agree?

It doesn’t need to be all new, but function names and wrappers could be
reorganized, pgRouting could be checked for compatibility with PostGIS 2.0
and Steve’s idea to provide functions that return the “raw data” is also a
good idea.

Daniel

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl <daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

Hi Steve,

I believe pgRouting is under GPLv3 - I think we changed from v2 last
year. For me GPL/MIT dual licensing looks a bit strange, I mean I
can’t imagine a case when one would prefer GPL.

No, it hasn’t changed.

MIT is GPL compatible and I see no problem with PostGIS which is also
under
GPL.

By the way, we already have GPL/QPL compatibility issue :slight_smile:

I would like to remove CGAL dependency and just return points for
driving
distance.
With PostGIS 2.0 there is also support for concave hull. Then CGAL isn’t
necessary anymore to calculate the drive time polygon.

Daniel

Anton.

On 5/27/11, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

Hi PSC,

I have been talking with Roni about doing more development for
OpenGraphRouter and to possible integrate that with pgRouting. The
first
issue I see is that of licensing. OpenGraphRouter is using an MIT-X
style license (and wants to stay that way) and I believe pgRouting is
using a GPLv2 License.

So I think this means we can move OpenGraphRouter code into
pgRouting,
which would make that code dual licensed, ie code used in pgRouting
would become GPLv2, but the original in OpenGraphRouter would remain
MIT-X, but we could not move pgRouting code into OpenGraphRouter.

One of my goals as we move forward is that code we develop should be
have a reference implementation in a command line tool in
OpenGraphRouter and a reference implementation with in pgRouting.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thoughts on the licensing
issues?

Would there be any interest in supporting a similar dual licensing in
pgRouting? This might not be possible because Postgresql/PostGIS
licensing.

Frank, Paul, can you comment please.

Thanks,
-Steve


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de


Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Ok, so if I understand the licensing issues correctly:

1. any code developed in opengraphrouter under MIT-X is good provided we do not introduce any GPL code into that code base.

2. we can use the opengraphrouter code in pgRouting because MIT-X is compatible for inclusion with GPL code and this does not pollute opengraphrouter code.

Does this sound correct?

This is important because Ashraf has more time to work on opengraphrouter and one of my goals for him is to look into getting our code callable from pgRouting. I want him to be more familiar with the issues involved in doing that and we are interested in developing an MIT-X licensed version of the contraction highways code in opengraphrouter.

Why use MIT-X vs GPL vs a dual license?

I do not want to start a License war thread, so I will state up front that all these licenses have a place and a philosophy that they support and everyone is entitled to their opinions. That said, I think that long term if we can get these working together there can be some significant benefits in potentially getting funding for development and porting the code to other environments and databases. If you looks at mapserver as an example they are very successful at getting funded projects - there are a lot of reasons for this and not all are obvious, but it is my strong belief that have an MIT-X license lowers the barriers to getting commercial companies to consider funding development. None of my consulting clients want any GPL v3 code in their infrastructure and they are extremely cautious about including GPL based components and it is a really hard sell to get them to consider funding GPL development.

Based on 1. and 2. above if these are true, then a dual license is probably not required. It would be nice if pgRouting had a dual license because then code could move from pgRouting back to opengraphrouter which would facilitate development. Under the current licensing code can flow from opengraphrouter to pgrouting but not the other way. This means we have to recreate all the tools there that we might want rather than create new tools. If we are successful in building an a good library that can be the future under pinning of pgrouting and other systems it seems to be a waste of effort to not reuse what you have there. A good example of code we might like to reuse are all the boost_*.cpp function.

Regarding CGAL, I would be all for dropping that. I have developed code that I'm considering adding to opengraphrouter that does the triangularization and contour creation. If I do that then that could be a potential replacement for CGAL, I also have a fast TSP routine that I might also contribute opengraphrouter.

-Steve

On 6/2/2011 9:36 PM, Anton Patrushev wrote:

Hi Daniel,

Doesn't this statement
  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
  * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
  * (at your option) any later version.
assume later (i.e. v3) versions?

I support getting rid of CGAL, but I don't think that PostGIS hulls
fit all possible cases of Driving Distance use.

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl<daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev<anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

Hi Steve,

I believe pgRouting is under GPLv3 - I think we changed from v2 last
year. For me GPL/MIT dual licensing looks a bit strange, I mean I
can't imagine a case when one would prefer GPL.

No, it hasn't changed.

MIT is GPL compatible and I see no problem with PostGIS which is also
under
GPL.

By the way, we already have GPL/QPL compatibility issue :slight_smile:

I would like to remove CGAL dependency and just return points for driving
distance.
With PostGIS 2.0 there is also support for concave hull. Then CGAL isn't
necessary anymore to calculate the drive time polygon.

Daniel

Anton.

On 5/27/11, Stephen Woodbridge<woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

Hi PSC,

I have been talking with Roni about doing more development for
OpenGraphRouter and to possible integrate that with pgRouting. The first
issue I see is that of licensing. OpenGraphRouter is using an MIT-X
style license (and wants to stay that way) and I believe pgRouting is
using a GPLv2 License.

So I think this means we can move OpenGraphRouter code into pgRouting,
which would make that code dual licensed, ie code used in pgRouting
would become GPLv2, but the original in OpenGraphRouter would remain
MIT-X, but we could not move pgRouting code into OpenGraphRouter.

One of my goals as we move forward is that code we develop should be
have a reference implementation in a command line tool in
OpenGraphRouter and a reference implementation with in pgRouting.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thoughts on the licensing issues?

Would there be any interest in supporting a similar dual licensing in
pgRouting? This might not be possible because Postgresql/PostGIS

licensing.

Frank, Paul, can you comment please.

Thanks,
    -Steve
_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl
_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG& Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Well, that's exactly what I was asking about - having dual MIT/GPL
license for pgRouting why one would prefer GPL when MIT option is
available? I mean, isn't it worth to think about moving to MIT-X
instead?

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

Ok, so if I understand the licensing issues correctly:

1. any code developed in opengraphrouter under MIT-X is good provided we
do not introduce any GPL code into that code base.

2. we can use the opengraphrouter code in pgRouting because MIT-X is
compatible for inclusion with GPL code and this does not pollute
opengraphrouter code.

Does this sound correct?

This is important because Ashraf has more time to work on
opengraphrouter and one of my goals for him is to look into getting our
code callable from pgRouting. I want him to be more familiar with the
issues involved in doing that and we are interested in developing an
MIT-X licensed version of the contraction highways code in opengraphrouter.

Why use MIT-X vs GPL vs a dual license?

I do not want to start a License war thread, so I will state up front
that all these licenses have a place and a philosophy that they support
and everyone is entitled to their opinions. That said, I think that long
term if we can get these working together there can be some significant
benefits in potentially getting funding for development and porting the
code to other environments and databases. If you looks at mapserver as
an example they are very successful at getting funded projects - there
are a lot of reasons for this and not all are obvious, but it is my
strong belief that have an MIT-X license lowers the barriers to getting
commercial companies to consider funding development. None of my
consulting clients want any GPL v3 code in their infrastructure and they
are extremely cautious about including GPL based components and it is a
really hard sell to get them to consider funding GPL development.

Based on 1. and 2. above if these are true, then a dual license is
probably not required. It would be nice if pgRouting had a dual license
because then code could move from pgRouting back to opengraphrouter
which would facilitate development. Under the current licensing code can
flow from opengraphrouter to pgrouting but not the other way. This means
we have to recreate all the tools there that we might want rather than
create new tools. If we are successful in building an a good library
that can be the future under pinning of pgrouting and other systems it
seems to be a waste of effort to not reuse what you have there. A good
example of code we might like to reuse are all the boost_*.cpp function.

Regarding CGAL, I would be all for dropping that. I have developed code
that I'm considering adding to opengraphrouter that does the
triangularization and contour creation. If I do that then that could be
a potential replacement for CGAL, I also have a fast TSP routine that I
might also contribute opengraphrouter.

-Steve

On 6/2/2011 9:36 PM, Anton Patrushev wrote:

Hi Daniel,

Doesn't this statement
  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
  * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
  * (at your option) any later version.
assume later (i.e. v3) versions?

I support getting rid of CGAL, but I don't think that PostGIS hulls
fit all possible cases of Driving Distance use.

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl<daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev<anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

Hi Steve,

I believe pgRouting is under GPLv3 - I think we changed from v2 last
year. For me GPL/MIT dual licensing looks a bit strange, I mean I
can't imagine a case when one would prefer GPL.

No, it hasn't changed.

MIT is GPL compatible and I see no problem with PostGIS which is also
under
GPL.

By the way, we already have GPL/QPL compatibility issue :slight_smile:

I would like to remove CGAL dependency and just return points for driving
distance.
With PostGIS 2.0 there is also support for concave hull. Then CGAL isn't
necessary anymore to calculate the drive time polygon.

Daniel

Anton.

On 5/27/11, Stephen Woodbridge<woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

Hi PSC,

I have been talking with Roni about doing more development for
OpenGraphRouter and to possible integrate that with pgRouting. The
first
issue I see is that of licensing. OpenGraphRouter is using an MIT-X
style license (and wants to stay that way) and I believe pgRouting is
using a GPLv2 License.

So I think this means we can move OpenGraphRouter code into pgRouting,
which would make that code dual licensed, ie code used in pgRouting
would become GPLv2, but the original in OpenGraphRouter would remain
MIT-X, but we could not move pgRouting code into OpenGraphRouter.

One of my goals as we move forward is that code we develop should be
have a reference implementation in a command line tool in
OpenGraphRouter and a reference implementation with in pgRouting.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thoughts on the licensing
issues?

Would there be any interest in supporting a similar dual licensing in
pgRouting? This might not be possible because Postgresql/PostGIS

licensing.

Frank, Paul, can you comment please.

Thanks,
    -Steve
_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl
_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG& Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl

Hi Steve and Anton,

First of all, there are already a couple of contributors to pgRouting and personally I don’t want to invest time to get agreements from everyone in case we want to change a license. To setup a PSC was already some waste of time, that could have been spent better. :wink:

Also it makes sense in my opinion to just have the same license for pgRouting as PostGIS has.
So from the pgRouting side I’m not really supporting any license change.

Daniel

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

Well, that’s exactly what I was asking about - having dual MIT/GPL
license for pgRouting why one would prefer GPL when MIT option is
available? I mean, isn’t it worth to think about moving to MIT-X
instead?

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

Ok, so if I understand the licensing issues correctly:

  1. any code developed in opengraphrouter under MIT-X is good provided we
    do not introduce any GPL code into that code base.

  2. we can use the opengraphrouter code in pgRouting because MIT-X is
    compatible for inclusion with GPL code and this does not pollute
    opengraphrouter code.

Does this sound correct?

This is important because Ashraf has more time to work on
opengraphrouter and one of my goals for him is to look into getting our
code callable from pgRouting. I want him to be more familiar with the
issues involved in doing that and we are interested in developing an
MIT-X licensed version of the contraction highways code in opengraphrouter.

Why use MIT-X vs GPL vs a dual license?

I do not want to start a License war thread, so I will state up front
that all these licenses have a place and a philosophy that they support
and everyone is entitled to their opinions. That said, I think that long
term if we can get these working together there can be some significant
benefits in potentially getting funding for development and porting the
code to other environments and databases. If you looks at mapserver as
an example they are very successful at getting funded projects - there
are a lot of reasons for this and not all are obvious, but it is my
strong belief that have an MIT-X license lowers the barriers to getting
commercial companies to consider funding development. None of my
consulting clients want any GPL v3 code in their infrastructure and they
are extremely cautious about including GPL based components and it is a
really hard sell to get them to consider funding GPL development.

Based on 1. and 2. above if these are true, then a dual license is
probably not required. It would be nice if pgRouting had a dual license
because then code could move from pgRouting back to opengraphrouter
which would facilitate development. Under the current licensing code can
flow from opengraphrouter to pgrouting but not the other way. This means
we have to recreate all the tools there that we might want rather than
create new tools. If we are successful in building an a good library
that can be the future under pinning of pgrouting and other systems it
seems to be a waste of effort to not reuse what you have there. A good
example of code we might like to reuse are all the boost_*.cpp function.

Regarding CGAL, I would be all for dropping that. I have developed code
that I’m considering adding to opengraphrouter that does the
triangularization and contour creation. If I do that then that could be
a potential replacement for CGAL, I also have a fast TSP routine that I
might also contribute opengraphrouter.

-Steve

On 6/2/2011 9:36 PM, Anton Patrushev wrote:

Hi Daniel,

Doesn’t this statement

  • This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  • it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
  • the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
  • (at your option) any later version.
    assume later (i.e. v3) versions?

I support getting rid of CGAL, but I don’t think that PostGIS hulls
fit all possible cases of Driving Distance use.

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl<daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev<anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

Hi Steve,

I believe pgRouting is under GPLv3 - I think we changed from v2 last
year. For me GPL/MIT dual licensing looks a bit strange, I mean I
can’t imagine a case when one would prefer GPL.

No, it hasn’t changed.

MIT is GPL compatible and I see no problem with PostGIS which is also
under
GPL.

By the way, we already have GPL/QPL compatibility issue :slight_smile:

I would like to remove CGAL dependency and just return points for driving
distance.
With PostGIS 2.0 there is also support for concave hull. Then CGAL isn’t
necessary anymore to calculate the drive time polygon.

Daniel

Anton.

On 5/27/11, Stephen Woodbridge<woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

Hi PSC,

I have been talking with Roni about doing more development for
OpenGraphRouter and to possible integrate that with pgRouting. The
first
issue I see is that of licensing. OpenGraphRouter is using an MIT-X
style license (and wants to stay that way) and I believe pgRouting is
using a GPLv2 License.

So I think this means we can move OpenGraphRouter code into pgRouting,
which would make that code dual licensed, ie code used in pgRouting
would become GPLv2, but the original in OpenGraphRouter would remain
MIT-X, but we could not move pgRouting code into OpenGraphRouter.

One of my goals as we move forward is that code we develop should be
have a reference implementation in a command line tool in
OpenGraphRouter and a reference implementation with in pgRouting.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thoughts on the licensing
issues?

Would there be any interest in supporting a similar dual licensing in
pgRouting? This might not be possible because Postgresql/PostGIS
licensing.

Frank, Paul, can you comment please.

Thanks,
-Steve


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG& Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

On 6/2/2011 10:39 PM, Daniel Kastl wrote:

Hi Steve and Anton,

First of all, there are already a couple of contributors to pgRouting
and personally I don't want to invest time to get agreements from
everyone in case we want to change a license. To setup a PSC was already
some waste of time, that could have been spent better. :wink:

Well the PSC is an important step, but it does not solve our basic problem of not having enough critical mass or having developers. GSoC is helping this year and we hold that Jay and Kishore will have time and interest to continue working with us in the future. Ashraf finished school and some other projects and he has come back and it interested in working more so there is hope.

Also it makes sense in my opinion to just have the same license for
pgRouting as PostGIS has.

There was some talk about merging with PostGIS. Is anything happening on that front or is that dead?

So from the pgRouting side I'm not really supporting any license change.

Ok, that is fine. We will have to work around that as a constraint.

-Steve

Daniel

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
<mailto:anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>>

    Well, that's exactly what I was asking about - having dual MIT/GPL
    license for pgRouting why one would prefer GPL when MIT option is
    available? I mean, isn't it worth to think about moving to MIT-X
    instead?

    Anton.

    On 6/3/11, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri@swoodbridge.com
    <mailto:woodbri@swoodbridge.com>> wrote:
     > Ok, so if I understand the licensing issues correctly:
     >
     > 1. any code developed in opengraphrouter under MIT-X is good
    provided we
     > do not introduce any GPL code into that code base.
     >
     > 2. we can use the opengraphrouter code in pgRouting because MIT-X is
     > compatible for inclusion with GPL code and this does not pollute
     > opengraphrouter code.
     >
     > Does this sound correct?
     >
     > This is important because Ashraf has more time to work on
     > opengraphrouter and one of my goals for him is to look into
    getting our
     > code callable from pgRouting. I want him to be more familiar with the
     > issues involved in doing that and we are interested in developing an
     > MIT-X licensed version of the contraction highways code in
    opengraphrouter.
     >
     > Why use MIT-X vs GPL vs a dual license?
     >
     > I do not want to start a License war thread, so I will state up front
     > that all these licenses have a place and a philosophy that they
    support
     > and everyone is entitled to their opinions. That said, I think
    that long
     > term if we can get these working together there can be some
    significant
     > benefits in potentially getting funding for development and
    porting the
     > code to other environments and databases. If you looks at
    mapserver as
     > an example they are very successful at getting funded projects -
    there
     > are a lot of reasons for this and not all are obvious, but it is my
     > strong belief that have an MIT-X license lowers the barriers to
    getting
     > commercial companies to consider funding development. None of my
     > consulting clients want any GPL v3 code in their infrastructure
    and they
     > are extremely cautious about including GPL based components and
    it is a
     > really hard sell to get them to consider funding GPL development.
     >
     > Based on 1. and 2. above if these are true, then a dual license is
     > probably not required. It would be nice if pgRouting had a dual
    license
     > because then code could move from pgRouting back to opengraphrouter
     > which would facilitate development. Under the current licensing
    code can
     > flow from opengraphrouter to pgrouting but not the other way.
    This means
     > we have to recreate all the tools there that we might want rather
    than
     > create new tools. If we are successful in building an a good library
     > that can be the future under pinning of pgrouting and other
    systems it
     > seems to be a waste of effort to not reuse what you have there. A
    good
     > example of code we might like to reuse are all the boost_*.cpp
    function.
     >
     > Regarding CGAL, I would be all for dropping that. I have
    developed code
     > that I'm considering adding to opengraphrouter that does the
     > triangularization and contour creation. If I do that then that
    could be
     > a potential replacement for CGAL, I also have a fast TSP routine
    that I
     > might also contribute opengraphrouter.
     >
     > -Steve
     >
     > On 6/2/2011 9:36 PM, Anton Patrushev wrote:
     >> Hi Daniel,
     >>
     >> Doesn't this statement
     >> * This program is free software; you can redistribute it
    and/or modify
     >> * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
    published by
     >> * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
    License, or
     >> * (at your option) any later version.
     >> assume later (i.e. v3) versions?
     >>
     >> I support getting rid of CGAL, but I don't think that PostGIS hulls
     >> fit all possible cases of Driving Distance use.
     >>
     >> Anton.
     >>
     >> On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl<daniel@georepublic.de
    <mailto:daniel@georepublic.de>> wrote:
     >>> 2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev<anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
    <mailto:anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>>
     >>>
     >>>> Hi Steve,
     >>>>
     >>>> I believe pgRouting is under GPLv3 - I think we changed from
    v2 last
     >>>> year. For me GPL/MIT dual licensing looks a bit strange, I mean I
     >>>> can't imagine a case when one would prefer GPL.
     >>>>
     >>>
     >>> No, it hasn't changed.
     >>>
     >>>>
     >>>> MIT is GPL compatible and I see no problem with PostGIS which
    is also
     >>>> under
     >>>> GPL.
     >>>>
     >>>> By the way, we already have GPL/QPL compatibility issue :slight_smile:
     >>>>
     >>>
     >>> I would like to remove CGAL dependency and just return points
    for driving
     >>> distance.
     >>> With PostGIS 2.0 there is also support for concave hull. Then
    CGAL isn't
     >>> necessary anymore to calculate the drive time polygon.
     >>>
     >>> Daniel
     >>>
     >>>>
     >>>> Anton.
     >>>>
     >>>> On 5/27/11, Stephen Woodbridge<woodbri@swoodbridge.com
    <mailto:woodbri@swoodbridge.com>> wrote:
     >>>>> Hi PSC,
     >>>>>
     >>>>> I have been talking with Roni about doing more development for
     >>>>> OpenGraphRouter and to possible integrate that with
    pgRouting. The
     >>>>> first
     >>>>> issue I see is that of licensing. OpenGraphRouter is using an
    MIT-X
     >>>>> style license (and wants to stay that way) and I believe
    pgRouting is
     >>>>> using a GPLv2 License.
     >>>>>
     >>>>> So I think this means we can move OpenGraphRouter code into
    pgRouting,
     >>>>> which would make that code dual licensed, ie code used in
    pgRouting
     >>>>> would become GPLv2, but the original in OpenGraphRouter would
    remain
     >>>>> MIT-X, but we could not move pgRouting code into OpenGraphRouter.
     >>>>>
     >>>>> One of my goals as we move forward is that code we develop
    should be
     >>>>> have a reference implementation in a command line tool in
     >>>>> OpenGraphRouter and a reference implementation with in pgRouting.
     >>>>>
     >>>>> Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Thoughts on the licensing
     >>>>> issues?
     >>>>>
     >>>>> Would there be any interest in supporting a similar dual
    licensing in
     >>>>> pgRouting? This might not be possible because Postgresql/PostGIS
     >>>> licensing.
     >>>>>
     >>>>> Frank, Paul, can you comment please.
     >>>>>
     >>>>> Thanks,
     >>>>> -Steve
     >>>>> _______________________________________________
     >>>>> pgrouting-dev mailing list
     >>>>> pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
    <mailto:pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org>
     >>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev
     >>>>>
     >>>>
     >>>> --
     >>>> Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
     >>>> Salzmannstraße 44,
     >>>> 81739 München, Germany
     >>>>
     >>>> Anton Patrushev
     >>>> CTO
     >>>>
     >>>> eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
    <mailto:anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>
     >>>> Web: http://georepublic.de
     >>>>
     >>>> Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
     >>>> Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de <mailto:1959519@sipgate.de>
     >>>>
     >>>> Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
     >>>> CEO: Daniel Kastl
     >>>> _______________________________________________
     >>>> pgrouting-dev mailing list
     >>>> pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
    <mailto:pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org>
     >>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev
     >>>>
     >>>
     >>> --
     >>> Georepublic UG& Georepublic Japan
     >>> eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
    <mailto:daniel.kastl@georepublic.de>
     >>> Web: http://georepublic.de
     >>>
     >>
     >
     > _______________________________________________
     > pgrouting-dev mailing list
     > pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org>
     > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev
     >

    --
    Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
    Salzmannstraße 44,
    81739 München, Germany

    Anton Patrushev
    CTO

    eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
    <mailto:anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>
    Web: http://georepublic.de

    Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
    Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de <mailto:1959519@sipgate.de>

    Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
    CEO: Daniel Kastl
    _______________________________________________
    pgrouting-dev mailing list
    pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org>
    http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de <mailto:daniel.kastl@georepublic.de>
Web: http://georepublic.de/&gt;

_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

There was some talk about merging with PostGIS. Is anything happening on that front or is that dead?

Looks more like it's dead so far.

--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

There was some talk about merging with PostGIS. Is anything happening on that front or is that dead?

Looks more like it’s dead so far.

In my opinion it is not. Because it wasn’t more than a first idea and the earliest time would have been PostGIS 2.1 anyway. So I guess there is still plenty of time and it’s more up to pgRouting to do the necessary work.

If integration into PostGIS is a goal, then changing or adding a license isn’t a topic, right?

Daniel

On 6/2/2011 11:18 PM, Daniel Kastl wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
<mailto:anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>>

     > There was some talk about merging with PostGIS. Is anything
    happening on that front or is that dead?

    Looks more like it's dead so far.

In my opinion it is not. Because it wasn't more than a first idea and
the earliest time would have been PostGIS 2.1 anyway. So I guess there
is still plenty of time and it's more up to pgRouting to do the
necessary work.

If integration into PostGIS is a goal, then changing or adding a license
isn't a topic, right?

I think the bigger question is is the purpose of integrating with PostGIS? This is not to challenge whether not not we should do this, only to get a better understanding of the reasons and to validate them.

Do we think it will get us more development? How and Why do we believe this would happen?

Do we think it would improve the product from a technical, marketing, management, funding or other point of view? How and Why do we believe this would happen?

Some other assumptions that we might have?

So there is a good president for project consoldation, in that mod_geocache and tinyOWS are small projects that are in the process of moving their provenance and management under the mapserver PSC. Both of these projects provide functionality that are commonly needed by mapserver users and smoothing the integration and coordinating releases adds some value to the mapserver users and hopefully some of the mapserver developers will get involved with these projects.

So back to your question of licensing ... As long as the license is not in conflict with the PostGIS licensing then it should not be a problem. For example today you use boost graph which has a permissive license like MIT-X and this is not a problem. If we moved all the core algorithm development into something like opengraphrouter and then wrote pgRouting wrappers to integrate it it would be the same as what you have now.

But there would be a huge advantage to the permissive licensing if you remember a while back there was some discussion with Ingres database, or we might want to integrate into mysql, sqlite, spatialite or just write standalone routing daemons. Having license flexibility makes this much easier.

Ok, so we don't want to hassle with re-licensing pgRouting, then if we can prove that opengraphrouter code can be integrated into pgrouting then we could look at what to would take to replicate the existing functionality in opengraphrouter and wrap that back into pgrouting and then continue core algorithm development there and use the pgrouting PSC as the governing body for this work.

We have a way to go to prove this, but Ashraf is willing to work on this to prove that we can do it.

-Steve

I didn't mean it is dead completely, but it looks like both
communities are busy with other tasks.

If integration into PostGIS is a goal, then changing or adding a license isn't a topic, right?

I think so.

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl <daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>

> There was some talk about merging with PostGIS. Is anything happening on
that front or is that dead?

Looks more like it's dead so far.

In my opinion it is not. Because it wasn't more than a first idea and the
earliest time would have been PostGIS 2.1 anyway. So I guess there is still
plenty of time and it's more up to pgRouting to do the necessary work.

If integration into PostGIS is a goal, then changing or adding a license
isn't a topic, right?

Daniel

--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl

Hi,

A quick question. I googled for PSC but couldn’t find what it means. Is it a formal club of people working on a project?

Thanks & Regards,
J Kishore kumar.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

On 6/2/2011 11:18 PM, Daniel Kastl wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de

mailto:[anton.patrushev@georepublic.de](mailto:anton.patrushev@georepublic.de)>

There was some talk about merging with PostGIS. Is anything
happening on that front or is that dead?

Looks more like it’s dead so far.

In my opinion it is not. Because it wasn’t more than a first idea and
the earliest time would have been PostGIS 2.1 anyway. So I guess there
is still plenty of time and it’s more up to pgRouting to do the
necessary work.

If integration into PostGIS is a goal, then changing or adding a license
isn’t a topic, right?

I think the bigger question is is the purpose of integrating with PostGIS? This is not to challenge whether not not we should do this, only to get a better understanding of the reasons and to validate them.

Do we think it will get us more development? How and Why do we believe this would happen?

Do we think it would improve the product from a technical, marketing, management, funding or other point of view? How and Why do we believe this would happen?

Some other assumptions that we might have?

So there is a good president for project consoldation, in that mod_geocache and tinyOWS are small projects that are in the process of moving their provenance and management under the mapserver PSC. Both of these projects provide functionality that are commonly needed by mapserver users and smoothing the integration and coordinating releases adds some value to the mapserver users and hopefully some of the mapserver developers will get involved with these projects.

So back to your question of licensing … As long as the license is not in conflict with the PostGIS licensing then it should not be a problem. For example today you use boost graph which has a permissive license like MIT-X and this is not a problem. If we moved all the core algorithm development into something like opengraphrouter and then wrote pgRouting wrappers to integrate it it would be the same as what you have now.

But there would be a huge advantage to the permissive licensing if you remember a while back there was some discussion with Ingres database, or we might want to integrate into mysql, sqlite, spatialite or just write standalone routing daemons. Having license flexibility makes this much easier.

Ok, so we don’t want to hassle with re-licensing pgRouting, then if we can prove that opengraphrouter code can be integrated into pgrouting then we could look at what to would take to replicate the existing functionality in opengraphrouter and wrap that back into pgrouting and then continue core algorithm development there and use the pgrouting PSC as the governing body for this work.

We have a way to go to prove this, but Ashraf is willing to work on this to prove that we can do it.

-Steve


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

2011/6/3 Kishore Kumar <justjkk@gmail.com>

Hi,

A quick question. I googled for PSC but couldn’t find what it means. Is it a formal club of people working on a project?

Project Steering Committee

It’s something that OSGeo for example requires to apply for project incubation.

Daniel

Thanks & Regards,
J Kishore kumar.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

On 6/2/2011 11:18 PM, Daniel Kastl wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de

mailto:[anton.patrushev@georepublic.de](mailto:anton.patrushev@georepublic.de)>

There was some talk about merging with PostGIS. Is anything
happening on that front or is that dead?

Looks more like it’s dead so far.

In my opinion it is not. Because it wasn’t more than a first idea and
the earliest time would have been PostGIS 2.1 anyway. So I guess there
is still plenty of time and it’s more up to pgRouting to do the
necessary work.

If integration into PostGIS is a goal, then changing or adding a license
isn’t a topic, right?

I think the bigger question is is the purpose of integrating with PostGIS? This is not to challenge whether not not we should do this, only to get a better understanding of the reasons and to validate them.

Do we think it will get us more development? How and Why do we believe this would happen?

Do we think it would improve the product from a technical, marketing, management, funding or other point of view? How and Why do we believe this would happen?

Some other assumptions that we might have?

So there is a good president for project consoldation, in that mod_geocache and tinyOWS are small projects that are in the process of moving their provenance and management under the mapserver PSC. Both of these projects provide functionality that are commonly needed by mapserver users and smoothing the integration and coordinating releases adds some value to the mapserver users and hopefully some of the mapserver developers will get involved with these projects.

So back to your question of licensing … As long as the license is not in conflict with the PostGIS licensing then it should not be a problem. For example today you use boost graph which has a permissive license like MIT-X and this is not a problem. If we moved all the core algorithm development into something like opengraphrouter and then wrote pgRouting wrappers to integrate it it would be the same as what you have now.

But there would be a huge advantage to the permissive licensing if you remember a while back there was some discussion with Ingres database, or we might want to integrate into mysql, sqlite, spatialite or just write standalone routing daemons. Having license flexibility makes this much easier.

Ok, so we don’t want to hassle with re-licensing pgRouting, then if we can prove that opengraphrouter code can be integrated into pgrouting then we could look at what to would take to replicate the existing functionality in opengraphrouter and wrap that back into pgrouting and then continue core algorithm development there and use the pgrouting PSC as the governing body for this work.

We have a way to go to prove this, but Ashraf is willing to work on this to prove that we can do it.

-Steve


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev


Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Steve,

I think it makes a lot of sense to use opengraphrouter (with
replicated pgRouting functionality) as a core and wrap it with command
line or PostGIS interfaces to have two different products. It kills
all rabbits with one shot - we still have GPLed pgRouting, we have its
functionality in opengraphrouter without any code sync problem, we
clean up and optimize code while replicating and finally we open a
possibility for other products to integrate our code.

I'll be more than happy if somebody (Ashraf?) will do this job with my
and other's support. We can start with my "Cinnamon" studies (I think
I sent you the link or even the code some time ago). I had similar
idea those days, but it was abandoned due lack of resources.

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl <daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:

2011/6/3 Kishore Kumar <justjkk@gmail.com>

Hi,

A quick question. I googled for PSC but couldn't find what it means. Is it
a formal club of people working on a project?

Project Steering Committee

It's something that OSGeo for example requires to apply for project
incubation.

Daniel

Thanks & Regards,
J Kishore kumar.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Stephen Woodbridge <
woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

On 6/2/2011 11:18 PM, Daniel Kastl wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev <anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
<mailto:anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>>

    > There was some talk about merging with PostGIS. Is anything
   happening on that front or is that dead?

   Looks more like it's dead so far.

In my opinion it is not. Because it wasn't more than a first idea and
the earliest time would have been PostGIS 2.1 anyway. So I guess there
is still plenty of time and it's more up to pgRouting to do the
necessary work.

If integration into PostGIS is a goal, then changing or adding a license
isn't a topic, right?

I think the bigger question is is the purpose of integrating with
PostGIS?
This is not to challenge whether not not we should do this, only to get a
better understanding of the reasons and to validate them.

Do we think it will get us more development? How and Why do we believe
this would happen?

Do we think it would improve the product from a technical, marketing,
management, funding or other point of view? How and Why do we believe
this
would happen?

Some other assumptions that we might have?

So there is a good president for project consoldation, in that
mod_geocache and tinyOWS are small projects that are in the process of
moving their provenance and management under the mapserver PSC. Both of
these projects provide functionality that are commonly needed by
mapserver
users and smoothing the integration and coordinating releases adds some
value to the mapserver users and hopefully some of the mapserver
developers
will get involved with these projects.

So back to your question of licensing ... As long as the license is not
in
conflict with the PostGIS licensing then it should not be a problem. For
example today you use boost graph which has a permissive license like
MIT-X
and this is not a problem. If we moved all the core algorithm development
into something like opengraphrouter and then wrote pgRouting wrappers to
integrate it it would be the same as what you have now.

But there would be a huge advantage to the permissive licensing if you
remember a while back there was some discussion with Ingres database, or
we
might want to integrate into mysql, sqlite, spatialite or just write
standalone routing daemons. Having license flexibility makes this much
easier.

Ok, so we don't want to hassle with re-licensing pgRouting, then if we
can
prove that opengraphrouter code can be integrated into pgrouting then we
could look at what to would take to replicate the existing functionality
in
opengraphrouter and wrap that back into pgrouting and then continue core
algorithm development there and use the pgrouting PSC as the governing
body
for this work.

We have a way to go to prove this, but Ashraf is willing to work on this
to prove that we can do it.

-Steve

_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl

Hi Anton,

I'm cc'ing Ashraf, not sure if he is on the list.

This would be great and I would love to have you support and expertise on this. So first thing is I think we should pick one routing function, like Dijkstra just to keep it simple and replicate that in opengraphrouter and create pgRouting equivalent wrappers.

The goal for this is to:

1. understand the process involved
2. allow Roni (Ashraf) to familiarize himself with postgresql server implementation
3. review new code from a GPL free point of view

So for the Dijkstra I think we need to review the various layering in the code for example:

1. pgpsql function calls; input and output preserved
these should be preserved for compatibility but we could add new ones to access new functionality

2. interface to opengraphrouter library
2a. what are the common public data structures, ie graph structures?
2b. what are the function input and outputs
2c. what if any are common utilities
2d. what is the C-API to opengraphrouter? is what this boils down to

To some extent we could go through the existing pgRouting docs for much of this information on the pgRouting side. For the opengraphrouter side of things, I do not want to get to formal, and I think that writing 2-3 of these functions will pretty quickly cause us to refactor into a useful api.

We might want to move opengraphrouter to git-hub eventually, but I'm not very familiar with git-hub yet and still have to read the svn-git tutorial to do simple stuff.

Thoughts?

-Steve

On 6/3/2011 2:04 AM, Anton Patrushev wrote:

Steve,

I think it makes a lot of sense to use opengraphrouter (with
replicated pgRouting functionality) as a core and wrap it with command
line or PostGIS interfaces to have two different products. It kills
all rabbits with one shot - we still have GPLed pgRouting, we have its
functionality in opengraphrouter without any code sync problem, we
clean up and optimize code while replicating and finally we open a
possibility for other products to integrate our code.

I'll be more than happy if somebody (Ashraf?) will do this job with my
and other's support. We can start with my "Cinnamon" studies (I think
I sent you the link or even the code some time ago). I had similar
idea those days, but it was abandoned due lack of resources.

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl<daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:

2011/6/3 Kishore Kumar<justjkk@gmail.com>

Hi,

A quick question. I googled for PSC but couldn't find what it means. Is it
a formal club of people working on a project?

Project Steering Committee

It's something that OSGeo for example requires to apply for project
incubation.

Daniel

Thanks& Regards,
J Kishore kumar.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Stephen Woodbridge<
woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

On 6/2/2011 11:18 PM, Daniel Kastl wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev<anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
<mailto:anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>>

     > There was some talk about merging with PostGIS. Is anything
    happening on that front or is that dead?

    Looks more like it's dead so far.

In my opinion it is not. Because it wasn't more than a first idea and
the earliest time would have been PostGIS 2.1 anyway. So I guess there
is still plenty of time and it's more up to pgRouting to do the
necessary work.

If integration into PostGIS is a goal, then changing or adding a license
isn't a topic, right?

I think the bigger question is is the purpose of integrating with
PostGIS?
This is not to challenge whether not not we should do this, only to get a
better understanding of the reasons and to validate them.

Do we think it will get us more development? How and Why do we believe
this would happen?

Do we think it would improve the product from a technical, marketing,
management, funding or other point of view? How and Why do we believe
this
would happen?

Some other assumptions that we might have?

So there is a good president for project consoldation, in that
mod_geocache and tinyOWS are small projects that are in the process of
moving their provenance and management under the mapserver PSC. Both of
these projects provide functionality that are commonly needed by
mapserver
users and smoothing the integration and coordinating releases adds some
value to the mapserver users and hopefully some of the mapserver
developers
will get involved with these projects.

So back to your question of licensing ... As long as the license is not
in
conflict with the PostGIS licensing then it should not be a problem. For
example today you use boost graph which has a permissive license like
MIT-X
and this is not a problem. If we moved all the core algorithm development
into something like opengraphrouter and then wrote pgRouting wrappers to
integrate it it would be the same as what you have now.

But there would be a huge advantage to the permissive licensing if you
remember a while back there was some discussion with Ingres database, or
we
might want to integrate into mysql, sqlite, spatialite or just write
standalone routing daemons. Having license flexibility makes this much
easier.

Ok, so we don't want to hassle with re-licensing pgRouting, then if we
can
prove that opengraphrouter code can be integrated into pgrouting then we
could look at what to would take to replicate the existing functionality
in
opengraphrouter and wrap that back into pgrouting and then continue core
algorithm development there and use the pgrouting PSC as the governing
body
for this work.

We have a way to go to prove this, but Ashraf is willing to work on this
to prove that we can do it.

-Steve

_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG& Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Hi Steve,

Are we planning to keep using BGL?

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Stephen Woodbridge <woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

Hi Anton,

I'm cc'ing Ashraf, not sure if he is on the list.

This would be great and I would love to have you support and expertise
on this. So first thing is I think we should pick one routing function,
like Dijkstra just to keep it simple and replicate that in
opengraphrouter and create pgRouting equivalent wrappers.

The goal for this is to:

1. understand the process involved
2. allow Roni (Ashraf) to familiarize himself with postgresql server
implementation
3. review new code from a GPL free point of view

So for the Dijkstra I think we need to review the various layering in
the code for example:

1. pgpsql function calls; input and output preserved
these should be preserved for compatibility but we could add new ones to
access new functionality

2. interface to opengraphrouter library
2a. what are the common public data structures, ie graph structures?
2b. what are the function input and outputs
2c. what if any are common utilities
2d. what is the C-API to opengraphrouter? is what this boils down to

To some extent we could go through the existing pgRouting docs for much
of this information on the pgRouting side. For the opengraphrouter side
of things, I do not want to get to formal, and I think that writing 2-3
of these functions will pretty quickly cause us to refactor into a
useful api.

We might want to move opengraphrouter to git-hub eventually, but I'm not
very familiar with git-hub yet and still have to read the svn-git
tutorial to do simple stuff.

Thoughts?

-Steve

On 6/3/2011 2:04 AM, Anton Patrushev wrote:

Steve,

I think it makes a lot of sense to use opengraphrouter (with
replicated pgRouting functionality) as a core and wrap it with command
line or PostGIS interfaces to have two different products. It kills
all rabbits with one shot - we still have GPLed pgRouting, we have its
functionality in opengraphrouter without any code sync problem, we
clean up and optimize code while replicating and finally we open a
possibility for other products to integrate our code.

I'll be more than happy if somebody (Ashraf?) will do this job with my
and other's support. We can start with my "Cinnamon" studies (I think
I sent you the link or even the code some time ago). I had similar
idea those days, but it was abandoned due lack of resources.

Anton.

On 6/3/11, Daniel Kastl<daniel@georepublic.de> wrote:

2011/6/3 Kishore Kumar<justjkk@gmail.com>

Hi,

A quick question. I googled for PSC but couldn't find what it means. Is
it
a formal club of people working on a project?

Project Steering Committee

It's something that OSGeo for example requires to apply for project
incubation.

Daniel

Thanks& Regards,
J Kishore kumar.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Stephen Woodbridge<
woodbri@swoodbridge.com> wrote:

On 6/2/2011 11:18 PM, Daniel Kastl wrote:

2011/6/3 Anton Patrushev<anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
<mailto:anton.patrushev@georepublic.de>>

     > There was some talk about merging with PostGIS. Is anything
    happening on that front or is that dead?

    Looks more like it's dead so far.

In my opinion it is not. Because it wasn't more than a first idea and
the earliest time would have been PostGIS 2.1 anyway. So I guess there
is still plenty of time and it's more up to pgRouting to do the
necessary work.

If integration into PostGIS is a goal, then changing or adding a
license
isn't a topic, right?

I think the bigger question is is the purpose of integrating with
PostGIS?
This is not to challenge whether not not we should do this, only to get
a
better understanding of the reasons and to validate them.

Do we think it will get us more development? How and Why do we believe
this would happen?

Do we think it would improve the product from a technical, marketing,
management, funding or other point of view? How and Why do we believe
this
would happen?

Some other assumptions that we might have?

So there is a good president for project consoldation, in that
mod_geocache and tinyOWS are small projects that are in the process of
moving their provenance and management under the mapserver PSC. Both of
these projects provide functionality that are commonly needed by
mapserver
users and smoothing the integration and coordinating releases adds some
value to the mapserver users and hopefully some of the mapserver
developers
will get involved with these projects.

So back to your question of licensing ... As long as the license is not
in
conflict with the PostGIS licensing then it should not be a problem.
For
example today you use boost graph which has a permissive license like
MIT-X
and this is not a problem. If we moved all the core algorithm
development
into something like opengraphrouter and then wrote pgRouting wrappers
to
integrate it it would be the same as what you have now.

But there would be a huge advantage to the permissive licensing if you
remember a while back there was some discussion with Ingres database,
or
we
might want to integrate into mysql, sqlite, spatialite or just write
standalone routing daemons. Having license flexibility makes this much
easier.

Ok, so we don't want to hassle with re-licensing pgRouting, then if we
can
prove that opengraphrouter code can be integrated into pgrouting then
we
could look at what to would take to replicate the existing
functionality
in
opengraphrouter and wrap that back into pgrouting and then continue
core
algorithm development there and use the pgrouting PSC as the governing
body
for this work.

We have a way to go to prove this, but Ashraf is willing to work on
this
to prove that we can do it.

-Steve

_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG& Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

_______________________________________________
pgrouting-dev mailing list
pgrouting-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pgrouting-dev

--
Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Salzmannstraße 44,
81739 München, Germany

Anton Patrushev
CTO

eMail: anton.patrushev@georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de

Tel: +49 (089) 420 959 519
Sip: 1959519@sipgate.de

Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428
CEO: Daniel Kastl