[raster]: change licensing of raster component

[robe]

raster component is currently GPLV3. proposal is to change to GPLv2+

request put out to vote:

​http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2013-October/023850.html

[strk]

See also #2515

[robe]

Got others approval on list and Azavea approvalon email. Just waiting for David Zwarg to confirm anywork he did off-company time can be relicensed as GPLv2+

[strk]

David Zwarg confirmed too: ​http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2013-October/023890.html

But note that if my analisys is correct there's no license conflict between raster and postgis. Rather by combining PostGIS and Raster the result has to be licensed as GPLv3+. After the license switch it'll be possible to distribute as GPLv2 too.

See http://trac.osgeo.org/postgis/ticket/2515#comment:7

[robe]

Bborie,

Now that we have full agreement, want to make this change? Didn't want to mess you up while you are sorting out the GDAL stuff.

[dustymugs]

Just for posterity, the votes:

Bborie: +1 ​http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2013-October/023849.html

Regina Obe: +1 ​http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2013-October/023850.html

Sandro Santilli: +1 ​http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2013-October/023851.html

Pierre Racine: +1 ​http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2013-October/023858.html

Mateusz Loskot: +1 ​http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2013-October/023861.html

Jorge Arevalo: +1 ​http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2013-October/023862.html

Paul Ramsey: +0 ​http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2013-October/023870.html

Even Rouault: +1 ​http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2013-October/023871.html

David Zwarg: +1 ​http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-devel/2013-October/023890.html

Azavea: +1 Off-ML…

"David Zwarg did this work while he was working for us so I think I can sign off on this on his behalf."

All copyright holders have consented to changing the license from GPL3+ to GPL2+.

[mloskot]

Bborie,

Thank you for working this out.

[dustymugs]

Applied for -trunk in r12058. Applied for 2.0 in r12059. Applied for 2.1 in r12060.

[strk]

The change has been put under the "Important / Breaking Changes" of NEWS, I don't think the change is breaking, and breaking changes are forbidden in stable branches. We should drop the "Breaking" word from there [ I'll do ]

[strk]

r12067 in 2.0 branch, r12068 in 2.1 branch, r12069 in trunk (where I basically removed the NEWS, being old after 2.1.1 gets released)