Asking permission to re-license portions of GeoTools 2.6 (2008) from LGPL to Apache

[Martin Desruisseaux]

Hello all

I'm Martin Desruisseaux, a former GeoTools 2 contributor and now a
developer of the Geotoolkit.org project (http://www.geotoolkit.org).

In our search for a community, we had a recent discussion with members
of the Apache Spatial Information System project
(http://incubator.apache.org/sis/), which is in incubation. A small
email exchange gave me the feeling that our design goals could be in
phase. We would like to offer them the Geotoolkit.org code. In order to
make that possible, we need OSGeo permission to re-license
Geotoolkit.org from its current LGPL 2.1 license to the more permissive
Apache license. The proposal is not to transfer the totality of
Geotoolkit.org to Apache SIS, but to allow them to review the code and
pick-up whatever they wish on a case-by-case basis. The transition to
Apache SIS would probably be slow and very progressive.

Geotoolkit.org is a fork of GeoTools 2.6 followed by 4 years of
developments. The project contains two parts: "core" and "pending". Our
proposal is to begin with the "core" part, which include material
derived from the following GeoTools 2.6 modules:

   * utilities
   * metadata
   * referencing
   * core of coverage (excluding I/O)
   * many (but not all) Swing widgets

In 2008 those modules were written (according SVN history) at 95% by
myself, Geomatys or IRD institute. The remaining 5% were written by
other GeoTools contributors. To my knowledge, everyone signed the
copyright assignment on http://download.osgeo.org/osgeo/legal/ which
grants copyright to OSGeo. However because the GeoTools community may
have vested interest in this re-licensing decision, I wish to ask on
this mailing list.

I would like to emphases that this is not a demand for relicensing
current GeoTools, but only relicensing of the GeoTools 2.6 code from
which "Geotidy" (the Geotoolkit.org precursor) is derived, which is 4
years old. If the community accepts to grant us the permission to
relicense 100% of Geotoolkit.org "core", that would be truly
appreciated. But in case of objection, we are willing to rewrite the 5%
of "core" code which was not written by myself, Geomatys or IRD.

It the community accepts re-licensing, this would allows Apache SIS to
gain services they are currently missing, allows Geotoolkit.org code
base to gain a community, and possibly allows the GeoTools project to
gain a metadata and referencing library maintained by a trusted
foundation, which could complete or replace the current referencing
module as GeoTools wish. The Geotk referencing module got 4 years of
extensive development since our departure, and has capabilities which
are - to my knowledge - unique in the open source world.

     Regards,

         Martin Desruisseaux


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel

[jody.garnett]

I am not sure how I feel about this one Martin; the presence of a GeoTools fork under a more permissive license seriously effects the value proposition of GeoTools. Both for those who have contributed to the project under the understanding of an LGPL license  (and thus expect any fixes made to the codebase to made available to "at least" end users); and also with organisations we work with on both ends of the license spectrum. 

thoughts:

- Perhaps this will be easier if we consider things on a case-by-case basis (which apparently is your preference for working with Apache?)

- Personally I have also entertained the though of changing the GeoTools license;  in part to my exposure to other license models via the eclipse foundation. 

I cannot see the value for the GeoTools project in making GeoTools 2.6 (even a fork) available under a more permissive license; unless GeoTools also moved to a more permissive license. I think it would put the project at too much of a disadvantage.

What we can do is put this on the agenda for our next GeoTools meeting. Thank you for approaching us on this matter; rather then proceeding ahead in isolation. I also note your shortlist of modules, which will help discussion.

-- 

Jody Garnett

On Sunday, 22 July 2012 at 12:28 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:

Hello all

I'm Martin Desruisseaux, a former GeoTools 2 contributor and now a

developer of the Geotoolkit.org project (http://www.geotoolkit.org).

In our search for a community, we had a recent discussion with members

of the Apache Spatial Information System project

(http://incubator.apache.org/sis/), which is in incubation. A small

email exchange gave me the feeling that our design goals could be in

phase. We would like to offer them the Geotoolkit.org code. In order to

make that possible, we need OSGeo permission to re-license

Geotoolkit.org from its current LGPL 2.1 license to the more permissive

Apache license. The proposal is not to transfer the totality of

Geotoolkit.org to Apache SIS, but to allow them to review the code and

pick-up whatever they wish on a case-by-case basis. The transition to

Apache SIS would probably be slow and very progressive.

Geotoolkit.org is a fork of GeoTools 2.6 followed by 4 years of

developments. The project contains two parts: "core" and "pending". Our

proposal is to begin with the "core" part, which include material

derived from the following GeoTools 2.6 modules:

* utilities

* metadata

* referencing

* core of coverage (excluding I/O)

* many (but not all) Swing widgets

In 2008 those modules were written (according SVN history) at 95% by

myself, Geomatys or IRD institute. The remaining 5% were written by

other GeoTools contributors. To my knowledge, everyone signed the

copyright assignment on http://download.osgeo.org/osgeo/legal/ which

grants copyright to OSGeo. However because the GeoTools community may

have vested interest in this re-licensing decision, I wish to ask on

this mailing list.

I would like to emphases that this is not a demand for relicensing

current GeoTools, but only relicensing of the GeoTools 2.6 code from

which "Geotidy" (the Geotoolkit.org precursor) is derived, which is 4

years old. If the community accepts to grant us the permission to

relicense 100% of Geotoolkit.org "core", that would be truly

appreciated. But in case of objection, we are willing to rewrite the 5%

of "core" code which was not written by myself, Geomatys or IRD.

It the community accepts re-licensing, this would allows Apache SIS to

gain services they are currently missing, allows Geotoolkit.org code

base to gain a community, and possibly allows the GeoTools project to

gain a metadata and referencing library maintained by a trusted

foundation, which could complete or replace the current referencing

module as GeoTools wish. The Geotk referencing module got 4 years of

extensive development since our departure, and has capabilities which

are - to my knowledge - unique in the open source world.

Regards,

Martin Desruisseaux

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

Live Security Virtual Conference

Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and

threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions

will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware

threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/

_______________________________________________

GeoTools-Devel mailing list

[hidden email]

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel

[Martin Desruisseaux]

Hello Jody

I'm understanding your concern. But I would also like to emphase that we
are talking about code written at 95% by myself, Geomatys or IRD - large
parts were written even before GeoTools 2 started -, that we are willing
to trim the remaining 5% using Subversion history, at that - like
everyone else - we granted copyright to OSGeo in the good faith that
OSGeo would listen to the wishes of those who wrote the code.

We asked for OSGeo incubation without success; this gave to Geotk a
competitive disadvantage unrelated to the technical merits of each
projects. We though that OSGeo could help building a community; the
other point of view was that the community shall exist before a project
get incubated. Apache is providing us a community, while Geotk could
provide them code base. This looks like a win-win relationship for us.
This can also be a win for the open source ecosystem, by increasing the
spectrum of solutions available to the users. The impact on GeoTools is
not necessarily bad, since projects don't have to write everything in
the GIS world. GeoTools could delegate some services to projects who
invested more in those areas, as you already do with JTS.

In any case a pledge you to consider not only the interest of the
GeoTools project, but also the interest of the open source ecosystem and
for the developers who wish to give a new live to their own work.

     Martin



Le 22/07/12 04:59, Jody Garnett a écrit :

> I am not sure how I feel about this one Martin; the presence of a
> GeoTools fork under a more permissive license seriously effects the
> value proposition of GeoTools. Both for those who have contributed to
> the project under the understanding of an LGPL license  (and thus
> expect any fixes made to the codebase to made available to "at least"
> end users); and also with organisations we work with on both ends of
> the license spectrum.
>
> thoughts:
> - Perhaps this will be easier if we consider things on a case-by-case
> basis (which apparently is your preference for working with Apache?)
> - Personally I have also entertained the though of changing the
> GeoTools license;  in part to my exposure to other license models via
> the eclipse foundation.
>
> I cannot see the value for the GeoTools project in making GeoTools 2.6
> (even a fork) available under a more permissive license; unless
> GeoTools also moved to a more permissive license. I think it would put
> the project at too much of a disadvantage.
>
> What we can do is put this on the agenda for our next GeoTools
> meeting. Thank you for approaching us on this matter; rather then
> proceeding ahead in isolation. I also note your shortlist of modules,
> which will help discussion.
>
> --
> Jody Garnett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel

[jody.garnett]

Relax Martin, I am starting a discussion here and we should go through a round of listening to what people think before considering any action. 

Do not stress out over my few words ventured at the start of a conversation. As indicated I can put this topic on the agenda for next meeting. 

-- 
Jody

Sent with Sparrow

On Sunday, 22 July 2012 at 6:23 PM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:

Hello Jody

I'm understanding your concern. But I would also like to emphase that we

are talking about code written at 95% by myself, Geomatys or IRD - large

parts were written even before GeoTools 2 started -, that we are willing

to trim the remaining 5% using Subversion history, at that - like

everyone else - we granted copyright to OSGeo in the good faith that

OSGeo would listen to the wishes of those who wrote the code.

We asked for OSGeo incubation without success; this gave to Geotk a

competitive disadvantage unrelated to the technical merits of each

projects. We though that OSGeo could help building a community; the

other point of view was that the community shall exist before a project

get incubated. Apache is providing us a community, while Geotk could

provide them code base. This looks like a win-win relationship for us.

This can also be a win for the open source ecosystem, by increasing the

spectrum of solutions available to the users. The impact on GeoTools is

not necessarily bad, since projects don't have to write everything in

the GIS world. GeoTools could delegate some services to projects who

invested more in those areas, as you already do with JTS.

In any case a pledge you to consider not only the interest of the

GeoTools project, but also the interest of the open source ecosystem and

for the developers who wish to give a new live to their own work.

Martin

Le 22/07/12 04:59, Jody Garnett a écrit :

I am not sure how I feel about this one Martin; the presence of a

GeoTools fork under a more permissive license seriously effects the

value proposition of GeoTools. Both for those who have contributed to

the project under the understanding of an LGPL license (and thus

expect any fixes made to the codebase to made available to "at least"

end users); and also with organisations we work with on both ends of

the license spectrum.

thoughts:

- Perhaps this will be easier if we consider things on a case-by-case

basis (which apparently is your preference for working with Apache?)

- Personally I have also entertained the though of changing the

GeoTools license; in part to my exposure to other license models via

the eclipse foundation.

I cannot see the value for the GeoTools project in making GeoTools 2.6

(even a fork) available under a more permissive license; unless

GeoTools also moved to a more permissive license. I think it would put

the project at too much of a disadvantage.

What we can do is put this on the agenda for our next GeoTools

meeting. Thank you for approaching us on this matter; rather then

proceeding ahead in isolation. I also note your shortlist of modules,

which will help discussion.

--

Jody Garnett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

Martin,

the fortnightly GeoTools meeting is today (13:00 UTC). I am sure that we
will discuss your request if we get time.

Kind regards,
Ben.

On 22/07/12 19:15, Jody wrote:

> Relax Martin, I am starting a discussion here and we should go through a
> round of listening to what people think before considering any action.
>
> Do not stress out over my few words ventured at the start of a
> conversation. As indicated I can put this topic on the agenda for next
> meeting.
>
> --
> Jody
> Sent with Sparrow <http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig>
>
> On Sunday, 22 July 2012 at 6:23 PM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
>
>> Hello Jody
>>
>> I'm understanding your concern. But I would also like to emphase that we
>> are talking about code written at 95% by myself, Geomatys or IRD - large
>> parts were written even before GeoTools 2 started -, that we are willing
>> to trim the remaining 5% using Subversion history, at that - like
>> everyone else - we granted copyright to OSGeo in the good faith that
>> OSGeo would listen to the wishes of those who wrote the code.
>>
>> We asked for OSGeo incubation without success; this gave to Geotk a
>> competitive disadvantage unrelated to the technical merits of each
>> projects. We though that OSGeo could help building a community; the
>> other point of view was that the community shall exist before a project
>> get incubated. Apache is providing us a community, while Geotk could
>> provide them code base. This looks like a win-win relationship for us.
>> This can also be a win for the open source ecosystem, by increasing the
>> spectrum of solutions available to the users. The impact on GeoTools is
>> not necessarily bad, since projects don't have to write everything in
>> the GIS world. GeoTools could delegate some services to projects who
>> invested more in those areas, as you already do with JTS.
>>
>> In any case a pledge you to consider not only the interest of the
>> GeoTools project, but also the interest of the open source ecosystem and
>> for the developers who wish to give a new live to their own work.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 22/07/12 04:59, Jody Garnett a écrit :
>>> I am not sure how I feel about this one Martin; the presence of a
>>> GeoTools fork under a more permissive license seriously effects the
>>> value proposition of GeoTools. Both for those who have contributed to
>>> the project under the understanding of an LGPL license (and thus
>>> expect any fixes made to the codebase to made available to "at least"
>>> end users); and also with organisations we work with on both ends of
>>> the license spectrum.
>>>
>>> thoughts:
>>> - Perhaps this will be easier if we consider things on a case-by-case
>>> basis (which apparently is your preference for working with Apache?)
>>> - Personally I have also entertained the though of changing the
>>> GeoTools license; in part to my exposure to other license models via
>>> the eclipse foundation.
>>>
>>> I cannot see the value for the GeoTools project in making GeoTools 2.6
>>> (even a fork) available under a more permissive license; unless
>>> GeoTools also moved to a more permissive license. I think it would put
>>> the project at too much of a disadvantage.
>>>
>>> What we can do is put this on the agenda for our next GeoTools
>>> meeting. Thank you for approaching us on this matter; rather then
>>> proceeding ahead in isolation. I also note your shortlist of modules,
>>> which will help discussion.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jody Garnett
>

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Software Engineer
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
Australian Resources Research Centre



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel

[Martin Desruisseaux]

Hello all

Two weeks ago, we posted a request to the GeoTools PMC asking permission
to re-license portions of GeoTools 2.6. However since that time, we
reformulated our demand as a request to the OSGeo board to state
whatever the Contributor's rights, which is granted "perpetual,
irrevocable, worldwide, royalty­free, license to use, copy, prepare
derivative works of, publicly display or perform, and distribute the
Submission", include the right to re-license his own code. Adrian
Custer, who wrote the Copyright Assignment together with a Lawyer,
confirmed us very clearly that the intend was to give unrestricted
rights to the contributor over his own code, including re-licensing,
providing that all other contributions are removed. This is also the
right of those who signed the Contributor Agreement instead than the
Copyright Assignment.

The OSGeo board is expected to take a decision in their meeting
scheduled August 9. If the OSGeo vote is positive, then we would like to
withdrawn our request to the GeoTools PMC. We decided to re-license only
the code that we wrote, with all other contributions omitted or rolled
back. Of course the procedure can continue if the GeoTools community
still wants to examine the question, but it could be driven as a
procedure independent of our current request.

     Regards,

         Martin


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel

[jody.garnett]

I with mark the proposal as withdrawn.

I assume when you use the word "we" are you are speaking for apache sis-dev.

-- 

Jody Garnett

On Sunday, 5 August 2012 at 8:52 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:

Hello all

Two weeks ago, we posted a request to the GeoTools PMC asking permission

to re-license portions of GeoTools 2.6. However since that time, we

reformulated our demand as a request to the OSGeo board to state

whatever the Contributor's rights, which is granted "perpetual,

irrevocable, worldwide, royalty­free, license to use, copy, prepare

derivative works of, publicly display or perform, and distribute the

Submission", include the right to re-license his own code. Adrian

Custer, who wrote the Copyright Assignment together with a Lawyer,

confirmed us very clearly that the intend was to give unrestricted

rights to the contributor over his own code, including re-licensing,

providing that all other contributions are removed. This is also the

right of those who signed the Contributor Agreement instead than the

Copyright Assignment.

The OSGeo board is expected to take a decision in their meeting

scheduled August 9. If the OSGeo vote is positive, then we would like to

withdrawn our request to the GeoTools PMC. We decided to re-license only

the code that we wrote, with all other contributions omitted or rolled

back. Of course the procedure can continue if the GeoTools community

still wants to examine the question, but it could be driven as a

procedure independent of our current request.

Regards,

Martin

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

Live Security Virtual Conference

Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and

threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions

will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware

threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/

_______________________________________________

GeoTools-Devel mailing list

[hidden email]

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel