MapGuide PSC Meeting 02-08-2007

MapGuide PSC - Home

Meeting Info
The sixth meeting of the MapGuide PSC will take place Thursday February 8th at 18:00 UTC (1:00 PM EST / 11:00 AM MST / 10:00 AM PST).

Meeting Chair: Bob Bray Universal Time: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=02&day=08&year=2007&hour=18&min=0&sec=0&p1=0 Location: The meeting will be held on IRC at #mapguide

Agenda

 * More CLA Topics
 * Incubation Status
 * Process to put a minor modification into an already approved RFC. (Tom)

Actions

 * (Bob) Update CLA to clarify that it refers only to the project
 * (Bob) Post Corporate CLA for Review / Motion
 * (Bob) Look into DWF Toolkit License
 * (Tom) Update PSC Guidelines with RFC modification process

Transcript
First topic is CLAs. Hello everyone Daniel raised a good point about it not mentioning whether it pertains to the project or the foundation. I think that needs to be clarified in the CLA itself. Which means we will probably need to revote and recollect them. Works for me. I don't like it because we have already collected a bunch, but I don't see any other choice. I am also pondering the Corporate CLA. I am reviewing that with legal as well. Hmm. The new one is more specific. If the original submitters are happy with the wording, I don't really see the need to re-submit. The foundation may have an issue with it. Because there is nothing in it that ties the agreement to the project. It reads as though it applies to eveything in the foundation. Did anyone from the board of the foundation comment on this CLA issue? Oh. I'd prefer to avoid that then. Have to deal with some startup pain I guess. No but I have not raised it to the board. Maybe I should before I get carried away. FrankW is on the mapguide-internals list so he must have seen the email pass. I wonder if he read it Dunno. I'll ping him seperately by e-mail and cc you. I know the board has discussed CLAs at one or more board meetings. ok. or maybe this email can be sent to IncCom since CLA is kind of IncCom business? Yea, I know the attitude of some projects is not to use a CLA. So I am inclined to just say our CLA needs to be project specific. 	My opinion is the same as Jason's that as long as the contributor doesn't mind the original CLA wording it is harmless. FrankW: Should we fix it going forward, or leave it as is? 	So just fix it, and if anyone wants, let them submit a new CLA in place of the old. Great. 	I do think you should fix it. I won't sign the old one for FDO for instance. 	(too broad) Yes I agree. I'll have our IP lawyer fix it for me. Should have a new one for approval by weeks end. I am reviewing the old Corporate CLA with her now and will also be posting that for review. ADSK would prefer to use one of those. DM Solutions might as well. Because of all this though, I was thinking of extending the deadline another week. Any objections? No, +1 No objection here OK danmo: Any new incubation issues to discuss? The incom meeting on Monday seems like the next step. Bob, what's the license on the DWF toolkit? nothing other than the email that I sent earlier this week. All the rest seems good to go. Monday's meeting seems to be the next step, right. 	danmo / rbray: will you both be able to make the incubation meeting on monday? jasonbirch: I am digging that up. Will post it today. I'll be there as well. I think it is a free use license, kind of like LGPL but not. lol I know there are a lot of third parties using it, so it can't be something terrible. 	Is it OSI? And is the DWF toolkit distributed from OSGeo? And our legal team cleared it when we open sourced MG. 	we have a fairly strict rule that OSGeo distributed software should be under an OSI approved open source license. 	Of course Autodesk can distribute it no problem. I don't know if it is OSI yet, because I have not looked at it in over a year. It's in the MG source tree, so we are distributing it in that way. 	License is here: http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=5522878 Title: Autodesk - Developer Center - License and Download for DWF Toolkit 7 (at usa.autodesk.com) 	ok, if it's in the source tree then I do think the issue should be resolved (with regard to being actually OSI legit). It is an ADSK license. Not OSI. 	I mean OSI approved. I highly doubt it. How does a license become OSI approved? 	It is submitted to OSI and run by their lawyers with regard to the essential freedoms of the open source definition. 	Well, lets flag this for further review. I don't think it needs to hold up graduating or anything like that. OK. Tom is this flagged in the Provinence Review? I mean the license and is the license itself in the tree? ... or even better you pick an already approved license... but there may be good reasons why ADSK lawyers chose to build their own license instead of reusing an existing one? 	It's flagged: the license needs to be added to the source repository I'm a bit worried about 1.1.3: (b)The terms of sublicenses granted by Licensee must (i) contain all applicable terms of this Agreement Does that mean that the LGPL license of MapGuide is not good enough, or does including the DWF license text in the distribution cover this? I don't know the history behind it all. When Rich reviewed this he thought having the license text in the distro covered it. I wouldn't mind seeing DWF under a true OSI license :) 	Maybe to be safe I will check with legal again, since I am having daily discussions with them anyway :) Anything else for incubation, now that I've fuinished stirring the pot? I think that is it until Mondays incom meeting. agreed I'll follow up on the DWF issue on the internals list, once I learn more. Ok, last topic on the formal agenda is RFC modifications. Did everyone read Tom's proposal on the mail list? Oh, sure... :) 	Ok before we go there (giving Jason time to read). 	danmo: How does MapServer deal with changes to an RFC that arrise after it was accepted? 	I don't think we have a clear policy. My opinion is that it would be fine to update the RFC with approval of the PSC until the implementation is complete and released. 	The only policy that was stated in this regard is that a complete rework of an RFC should be issued under a new #. 	After the features in a RFC have been released then I don't think we should be allowed to edit a RFC, the old RFC shoudl be deprecated and a new RFC created to supercede it 	That kind of change should not require a new RFC. I like Tom's outline, as long as the RFC has not been flagged as completed. If it has, then a new bug task or enhancement task should be used depending on the scale of the changes. 	Yea that makes a lot of sense. That is more or less what Tom is proposing. Yea, what Tom is refering to are changes that arrise during implementation. 	right Sounds like we have concensus :) 	That was too easy. Nice that we have a well established model to follow. :) <TomFukushima>	Great! Should I put this in one of the the PSC process doc Do we vote now, or wait for modifications to the doc? If you put that in writing in your RFC process docs then you'll be ahead of MapServer :) 	Process is everything, unless it gets in the way of reality... <TomFukushima>	Ok, I'll put it in the process doc and then we can vote on it next week 	Ok, so the question is should we modify the doc for this or just post it as a seperate RFC doc? 	lol. 	We do have a page on RFCs somewhere... 	Nevermind, lets update the doc. 	That was a recursive topic... 	:) :) 	Wow, do we get to adjourn early? 	Unless someone has additional topics? 	Going once... 	twice... <FrankW>	wants to submit the "make mapguide work on 64bit linux rfc".... 	That would be awesome. 	Awesome. Are you going to do the work? <FrankW>	just kidding ... adjourn. <FrankW>	lol 	No teasing :) <FrankW>	Well, lets say I'm going to do a little experimenting with FDO on 64bit linux, but I'm not taking on MapGuide. How about getting sorting working in SDF ;) 	Ok, lets adjourn. I'll go call my favorite folks in legal, sigh... 	+1. At least they aren't coming to YOU with application development questions... 	FrankW: I think Traian got 32 bit MG running on 64 bit linux. 	So you could check in with him. <FrankW>	rbray: My aim is to be able to work natively on my desktop 64bit system, but I'll settle for being able to run fdo+gdal provider for now. 	FrankW: Cool, could be the start of 64 bit MG. Let us know how it goes. <FrankW>	will do - I'll comment on fdo-internals on what I find. 	FrankW ... Shawn is working on an fgs build of mapguide stuff now ... 	Meeting Adjourned: Thanks everyone. 	bye <FrankW>	pagameba: yes, I heard that last week. It is fantastic news.