License clarification

[tleguern]

Hello,

It is unclear to me which license is used for the module keycloak-sync: the main LICENSE file says GPLv3 but keycloak-sync/src/setup.cfg says BSD, without precising which one.
Moreover the keycloak-sync/src/MANIFEST.in files explicitly includes the GPLv3 LICENSE.

Can you please clarify which of the two licenses apply and if it is BSD can you add the full license text?

Thank you.

[afabiani]

It should be the same of GeoNode https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/blob/master/LICENSE

[afabiani]

@Zetten can you confirm?

[tleguern]

It should be the same of GeoNode https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode/blob/master/LICENSE

GeoNode is GPLv2 which is also a different license.

[Zetten]

@Zetten can you confirm?

The original author was @WernerRaath who may be able to shed more light on it.

I had assumed when making my (small) modification that it was covered under the LICENSE at the top of this repo. I didn't realise setup.cfg declared a different one.

[tleguern]

Is this setup.cfg file automatically generated perhaps?

[afabiani]

Yeps, I'm pretty sure the setup.cfg one was auto-generated, but still we need the author to decide wich license to apply.

[tleguern]

Hello, any news on this subject?

[giohappy]

This repo will need to be discussed by the GeoNode PSC since it's a bucket of community modules, some of them not maintained anymore, and without a clear attribution.

We should probably align its license to GeoNode (GPL 2) and ask authors to align their code to it. However, I don't think we will receive answers.

In any case, I would be in favor of archiving this repository and moving actively maintained modules to their own repositories.

@afabiani @gannebamm @t-book @francbartoli and anyone else, opinions?

[ridoo]

I did not contributed to this repository, but we wrote some GeoNode modules (mostly for 3.x and 4.x). Here's my view:

It is nice to have a location to explore written modules to get the idea "how things are done". This is for the good and the bad at the same time, thinking of copying/pasting things which are hacky at some point .

However, the main drawback I see is the maintenance issue of very different modules:

• unclear maintenance responsibility
• unclear what GeoNode version is actually supported
• some are written for ancient GeoNode versions, but stand on the same level as newly written ones

The repository looks quite promising at a first glance, but does not hold on a second look, though.

I would tend to maintain a contrib module in a dedicated repository. In the end, branch management is left to the maintainer, but would better allow to organize support for different GeoNode versions over time.

"Good", or "well-known" contrib modules can be collected on a dedicated page nevertheless. When publishing a module to pypi.org you are able to tag it, too, so they can be found in context of a GeoNode search.

[giohappy]

@ridoo yeah, I agree.

Also, when you want to install a module from this repo you get all or nothing, which is not good in many ways of course.
Good idea to have a page for modules on geonode.org (which, by the way, needs some love!).
Any contribution is well accepted of course.

[gannebamm]

@giohappy We discussed this internally while creating contrib apps as extensions for our GeoNode instance. To have better branch management and maintainability, we followed your idea and created a separate repository for the extension. You can take a look at it here: https://github.com/GeoNodeUserGroup-DE/contrib_externalapplications
Feedback is welcome! My idea was to get a feeling for this and later create a GNIP and discuss it with the PSC. You were faster :D

I like the idea of a managed list on geonode.org with contrib modules. Just like the gallery https://geonode.org/gallery/ but with contrib modules.

[francbartoli]

Hi @giohappy, +1 from my end. Anyway, I like the idea of advertising them on the website and possibly to have a repository that acts as an aggregator of maintained modules only.

[gannebamm]

As discussed in this thread, we created our own repos per contrib apps. Currently, two are listed here:

• https://github.com/GeoNodeUserGroup-DE/contrib_wcs_remote_service
• https://github.com/GeoNodeUserGroup-DE/contrib_externalapplications

We would like to adopt at least the geonode_ldap parts of this repository. Are we allowed to do this? We would start to get it properly working with the current GeoNode stable version.

https://github.com/GeoNode/geonode-contribs/commits/master/ldap
this delivers the following contributors: @giohappy @afabiani @t-book @ricardogsilva

Are we allowed to proceed with the above?

[ricardogsilva]

@gannebamm

With regard to your request about using geonode_ldap code, and as the original contributor of such code, I am absolutely OK with it - please take it and use it. I suspect the opinion of the other people mentioned to be the same, but obviously I cannot speak for others.

The fact that it may have not originally been published with a suitable license was an oversight, but the intention surely was too be inline with the licensing terms of GeoNode, and to enable the community to freely use it for whatever needs.

The only thing I would add, and I know I'm straddling off-topic here, is that, as mentioned in this code, perhaps we'd do good to make the geonode user groups implementation a bit more standard - then we could retire this geonode_ldap module, as it would not need to exist anymore. Just food for thought.