Hi all: great blogpost by Jody at
http://www.how2map.com/2015/02/a-good-test-for-ogc-and-osgeo.html, inspired by IRC discussion around pycsw OSGeo Incubation. In a nutshell, pycsw inclusion in DebianGIS had issues given the fact that we have the OGC Schemas baked in the codebase as part of the install. In the pycsw case we use the schemas in realtime when validating requests. This is a huge benefit because we let (in this case lxml->libxml2) do the validation instead of implementing this ourselves. At the same time, getting onto DebianGIS is of value for packaging and distribution. How do other packages deal with this? Are there options for bundling the OGC schemas outside of the codebase? Is there opportunity to clarify the ambiguities? ..Tom _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
Le vendredi 06 février 2015 17:43:02, Tom Kralidis a écrit :
> Hi all: great blogpost by Jody at > http://www.how2map.com/2015/02/a-good-test-for-ogc-and-osgeo.html, > inspired by IRC discussion around pycsw OSGeo Incubation. > > In a nutshell, pycsw inclusion in DebianGIS had issues given the fact > that we have the OGC Schemas baked in the codebase as part of the > install. > > In the pycsw case we use the schemas in realtime when validating > requests. This is a huge benefit because we let (in this case > lxml->libxml2) do the validation instead of implementing this > ourselves. > > At the same time, getting onto DebianGIS is of value for packaging and > distribution. > > How do other packages deal with this? Are there options for bundling > the OGC schemas outside of the codebase? Is there opportunity to > clarify the ambiguities? > Tom, A workaround would be to download the schemas the first time they are needed, but this doesn't always work for people cut off from the internet or behind a firewall. A potential suggestion for OGC: they could add the right to modify their documents, with a clause similar to the one found in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlib_License """ 2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. """ Even -- Spatialys - Geospatial professional services http://www.spatialys.com _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
In reply to this post by Tom Kralidis
I noticed the issue makes the OGC FAQ:
The above is clear as mud, I can see what they are trying to accomplish - but even the w3c schemas are fine to distribute. At the very least it would be nice for OSGeo to approach OGC and show this is an issue effecting adoption in an open source setting. It looks like the technical limitation (do not use the same namespace) is getting in the way of software terms. Perhaps it could be relaxed to "do not publish under the same namespace" (allowing its use in pycsw for internal validation). -- Jody Garnett On 6 February 2015 at 08:43, Tom Kralidis <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi all: great blogpost by Jody at _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> writes: > It looks like the technical limitation (do not use the same namespace) is > getting in the way of software terms. Perhaps it could be relaxed to "do > not publish under the same namespace" (allowing its use in pycsw for > internal validation). I suspect Debian's issue is about following the DFSG, and having the right to make changes, rather than that they actually *want* to make changes now. I maintain some packages in pkgsrc (multi-OS packaging system), and there we require non-Free licenses to be identified, which prevents building of the package by default. But often Debian is in the lead for identifying these sorts of issues. Also, if you said "permission granted under copyright law, but we ask as a courtesy that you not do X", that's probably ok with Debian (I can't speak for them, but it would not be an issue in pkgsrc). _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
Agreed, the restriction comes out of trying to keep these things unique (hence the request as a courtesy). I still think this is an interesting case where OSGeo and OGC could work out a compromise for the benefit of all. It is within the mandate of OSGeo, and help OGC standards reach an extended audience. -- Jody -- Jody Garnett On 7 February 2015 at 07:01, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
Jody -
Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. I will be chairing a
session at the Barcelona TC meetings to discuss some proposed changes to the OGC
Policies and Procedures. I would like to add this issue to the agenda. Any ideas
about possible solutions would be most welcome. Quite honestly, in all my years
at the OGC, I never read this section of the OGC IPR FAQ. You are quite correct
in your assessment – Clear as mud!
Cheers
Carl From: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2015 6:14 PM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] OGC XML schemas and FOSS4G
softwaredistribution Agreed, the restriction comes out of trying to keep these things
unique (hence the request as a courtesy).
I still think this is an interesting case where OSGeo and OGC could work
out a compromise for the benefit of all. It is within the mandate of OSGeo, and
help OGC standards reach an extended audience.
--
Jody --
Jody Garnett On 7 February 2015 at 07:01, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
I think we better ask around for a contact at Debian (perhaps the person who reviewed pycsw can be approached?). Failing that we could review what the w3c has written which is apparently successful. -- Jody -- Jody Garnett On 9 February 2015 at 11:45, Carl Reed <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> writes: > I think we better ask around for a contact at Debian (perhaps the person > who reviewed pycsw can be approached?). Failing that we could review what > the w3c has written which is apparently successful. I'm not from Debian, but this issue is not really about Debian. It's about whether OGC software/data have a Free Software or Open Source license, which at least Debian and pkgsrc care about. pkgsrc's rules are that in order to build by default (without the user having to add a license to an acceptable list) a license must either have been approved by the FSF as Free or by the OSI as Open Source. Debian's rules are that the license must meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines which is not the same as the other two but similar in spirit. One clause (in section 4) about "protecting the integrity of the author's work" is: The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. I assume this is the OGC's concern - that modified works not end up getting used by people who don't realize they are modified. So a license which grants permission to copy/modify/distribute but with the restriction that modified works must have a different package name and a different scheme name should be acceptable. There is precedent for this in separating software licenses under copyright law from trademark law. All that said, I would be highly suprised if any packaging system wanted to make substantive changes to such a package. Generally, the notion is that any changes are sent back to be incorporated upstream, and patches only accumulate in distributions from non-responsive upstreams. Greg _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
In reply to this post by jody.garnett
Hi Carl and others,
Thanks to Tom Kralidis for bringing this thread to my attention. I'm bringing the Debian GIS team into the loop too. On 02/13/2015 06:12 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: > I think we better ask around for a contact at Debian (perhaps the person > who reviewed pycsw can be approached?). Failing that we could review what > the w3c has written which is apparently successful. > On 9 February 2015 at 11:45, Carl Reed <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. I will be chairing a >> session at the Barcelona TC meetings to discuss some proposed changes to >> the OGC Policies and Procedures. I would like to add this issue to the >> agenda. Any ideas about possible solutions would be most welcome. Quite >> honestly, in all my years at the OGC, I never read this section of the OGC >> IPR FAQ. You are quite correct in your assessment – Clear as mud! >> On 7 February 2015 at 07:01, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> writes: >>> >>>> It looks like the technical limitation (do not use the same namespace) >>> is >>>> getting in the way of software terms. Perhaps it could be relaxed to "do >>>> not publish under the same namespace" (allowing its use in pycsw for >>>> internal validation). >>> >>> I suspect Debian's issue is about following the DFSG, and having the >>> right to make changes, rather than that they actually *want* to make >>> changes now. I maintain some packages in pkgsrc (multi-OS packaging >>> system), and there we require non-Free licenses to be identified, which >>> prevents building of the package by default. But often Debian is in the >>> lead for identifying these sorts of issues. >>> >>> Also, if you said "permission granted under copyright law, but we ask as >>> a courtesy that you not do X", that's probably ok with Debian (I can't >>> speak for them, but it would not be an issue in pkgsrc). The issue with the OGC Document & Software Notice terms in Debian are indeed their non-compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and specifically the right to modifications. To quote the relevant clauses of the DFSG: " 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.) " https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines The problematic OGC license terms were first discussed with the Debian FTP master after they rejected the upload of TinyOWS. The tinyows packages was already included in UbuntuGIS and OSGeo-Live for some time, but it never found its way into Debian. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2014-January/017300.html I've written to [hidden email] to discuss this issue, but I never received a response. Please refer to the debian-gis list archive for the message in question. https://lists.debian.org/debian-gis/2014/01/msg00032.html One way to address this issue is to change the DFSG, adding another compromise for standards related files. But changing the DFSG requires a General Resolution with a 3:1 majority to be accepted, because changing a Foundation Documents (Social Contract & DFSG) is not taken lightly in the Debian project. https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-4 Debian doesn't include RFCs for similar reasons to those with the OGC notice terms. The new IETFS copyright notice explicitly forbids modifications not approved via the standards process. https://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments https://bugs.debian.org/199810 To deal with the problematic OGC notices the problematic files are excluded from the Debian package where possible. The CITE tests included in TinyOWS & PostGIS are removed for their Debian packages. The XSD schemas are not so easily stripped from the packages because they are more essential to the operation of the programs unlike their testsuites. Most CITE tests ship with the OGC Document Notice included, which makes sense for their role in assuring standards compliance, but their role in software would make the more permissive Software Notice more appropriate. Both the OGC Document Notice and the OGC Software Notice are problematic with respect to the DFSG. The first paragraph of the Software Notice contains: " By obtaining, using and/or copying this work, you (the licensee) agree that you have read, understood, and will comply with the following terms and conditions. " This is not possible in the Debian package management, prompting to accept license terms is not possible before obtaining the work. The package first needs to be downloaded from the repository (obtained) before the debconf prompt can be used to allow the user to accept or reject the terms and conditions. Luckily this was not problematic enough to also reject TinyOWS from the non-free repository, but not having it in the main repo is a pain (non-free is not autobuilt by default for instance). Please refer to the email by Thorsten Alteholz in the thread he spawned with the rejection of the Debian package for TinyOWS. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2014-January/017321.html In that message Thorsten also requests an clear statement from OGC about which terms apply to CITE tests. It would be very helpful if OGC could join the discussion with the Debian FTP masters to clearify their position. Because a change in the Debian projects strict adherence to the DFSG is not expected in the short term, it would also be very helpful if the terms for OGC standards works could be changed to be more permissive with modifications. This would greatly ease work required to include OSGeo software with OGC works in Linux distributions, not only Debian. Debian is just one of the strictest in upholding the principals of Free Software, only the FSF endorsed distributions are even stricter. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
Hi all: Cameron suggested we brainstorm ideas to put forth for Carl et. al. I've bootstrapped http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_XML_Schemas_and_FOSS4G_Software_Distribution for folks to augment. The next TC is 09 - 13 March 2015, so it would be good to have something by then, which (as nhv states) would need to be passed through the OSGeo Board? On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:10:31 +0100 > From: Sebastiaan Couwenberg <[hidden email]> > To: Carl Reed <[hidden email]> > Cc: Debian GIS Project <[hidden email]>, > [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] OGC XML schemas and FOSS4G softwaredistribution > > Hi Carl and others, > > Thanks to Tom Kralidis for bringing this thread to my attention. I'm > bringing the Debian GIS team into the loop too. > > On 02/13/2015 06:12 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: >> I think we better ask around for a contact at Debian (perhaps the person >> who reviewed pycsw can be approached?). Failing that we could review what >> the w3c has written which is apparently successful. > >> On 9 February 2015 at 11:45, Carl Reed <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. I will be chairing a >>> session at the Barcelona TC meetings to discuss some proposed changes to >>> the OGC Policies and Procedures. I would like to add this issue to the >>> agenda. Any ideas about possible solutions would be most welcome. Quite >>> honestly, in all my years at the OGC, I never read this section of the OGC >>> IPR FAQ. You are quite correct in your assessment – Clear as mud! > >>> On 7 February 2015 at 07:01, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> Jody Garnett <[hidden email]> writes: >>>> >>>>> It looks like the technical limitation (do not use the same namespace) >>>> is >>>>> getting in the way of software terms. Perhaps it could be relaxed to "do >>>>> not publish under the same namespace" (allowing its use in pycsw for >>>>> internal validation). >>>> >>>> I suspect Debian's issue is about following the DFSG, and having the >>>> right to make changes, rather than that they actually *want* to make >>>> changes now. I maintain some packages in pkgsrc (multi-OS packaging >>>> system), and there we require non-Free licenses to be identified, which >>>> prevents building of the package by default. But often Debian is in the >>>> lead for identifying these sorts of issues. >>>> >>>> Also, if you said "permission granted under copyright law, but we ask as >>>> a courtesy that you not do X", that's probably ok with Debian (I can't >>>> speak for them, but it would not be an issue in pkgsrc). > > The issue with the OGC Document & Software Notice terms in Debian are > indeed their non-compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and > specifically the right to modifications. To quote the relevant clauses > of the DFSG: > > " > 3. Derived Works > > The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must > allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of > the original software. > > 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code > > The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in > modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch > files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program > at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of > software built from modified source code. The license may require > derived works to carry a different name or version number from the > original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group > encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, > from being modified.) > " > > https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines > > The problematic OGC license terms were first discussed with the Debian > FTP master after they rejected the upload of TinyOWS. The tinyows > packages was already included in UbuntuGIS and OSGeo-Live for some time, > but it never found its way into Debian. > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2014-January/017300.html > > I've written to [hidden email] to discuss this issue, > but I never received a response. Please refer to the debian-gis list > archive for the message in question. > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-gis/2014/01/msg00032.html > > One way to address this issue is to change the DFSG, adding another > compromise for standards related files. But changing the DFSG requires a > General Resolution with a 3:1 majority to be accepted, because changing > a Foundation Documents (Social Contract & DFSG) is not taken lightly in > the Debian project. > > https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-4 > > Debian doesn't include RFCs for similar reasons to those with the OGC > notice terms. The new IETFS copyright notice explicitly forbids > modifications not approved via the standards process. > > https://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments > https://bugs.debian.org/199810 > > To deal with the problematic OGC notices the problematic files are > excluded from the Debian package where possible. The CITE tests included > in TinyOWS & PostGIS are removed for their Debian packages. The XSD > schemas are not so easily stripped from the packages because they are > more essential to the operation of the programs unlike their testsuites. > > Most CITE tests ship with the OGC Document Notice included, which makes > sense for their role in assuring standards compliance, but their role in > software would make the more permissive Software Notice more appropriate. > > Both the OGC Document Notice and the OGC Software Notice are problematic > with respect to the DFSG. The first paragraph of the Software Notice > contains: > > " > By obtaining, using and/or copying this work, you (the licensee) > agree that you have read, understood, and will comply with the > following terms and conditions. > " > > This is not possible in the Debian package management, prompting to > accept license terms is not possible before obtaining the work. The > package first needs to be downloaded from the repository (obtained) > before the debconf prompt can be used to allow the user to accept or > reject the terms and conditions. > > Luckily this was not problematic enough to also reject TinyOWS from the > non-free repository, but not having it in the main repo is a pain > (non-free is not autobuilt by default for instance). > > Please refer to the email by Thorsten Alteholz in the thread he spawned > with the rejection of the Debian package for TinyOWS. > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2014-January/017321.html > > In that message Thorsten also requests an clear statement from OGC about > which terms apply to CITE tests. > > It would be very helpful if OGC could join the discussion with the > Debian FTP masters to clearify their position. > > Because a change in the Debian projects strict adherence to the DFSG is > not expected in the short term, it would also be very helpful if the > terms for OGC standards works could be changed to be more permissive > with modifications. This would greatly ease work required to include > OSGeo software with OGC works in Linux distributions, not only Debian. > Debian is just one of the strictest in upholding the principals of Free > Software, only the FSF endorsed distributions are even stricter. > > Kind Regards, > > Bas > > -- > GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1 > Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 > > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
Added a take to the wiki page. Would love to have feedback from from Bas to see if the result would get past the Debian guidelines.
I have sympathy with the OGC here as there is a technical restrictions in play here, rather than just a license restrictions. XML parsers having obtained a schema once (from any source) are not obliged to download it again from an application (which may of performed modifications). -- Jody -- Jody Garnett On 16 February 2015 at 12:14, Tom Kralidis <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
On 02/16/2015 11:05 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Would love to have feedback from from Bas to see if the result would get > past the Debian guidelines. Your proposed text is certainly an improvement, and more likely to be acceptable to the Debian FTP masters. I cannot speak on their behalf, but it seems to address the concerns raised in TinyOWS rejection thread. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2014-January/017321.html IANAL, but I think because how the Copyright FAQ (legalfaq) is referred to in the Document Notice it's clear that it's an addendum to the license and should be considered part of the license terms. Further clarifying the terms for schemas, and also documenting the terms for CITE tests in the legalfaq is likely sufficient and changes to the Document & Software Notice terms themselves won't be required. There has not been a clear statement by the Debian FTP masters about whether the OGC Software Notice are considered DFSG compliant. But because of the similarity between the OGC Software Notice and W3C Software Notice terms chances are good that they are DFSG compliant. There is a lot of software in the Debian main repository with W3C-Software licensed works. We need to get OGC in contact with the Debian FTP masters to get clear statements from both parties on which terms apply to different works, and which terms are acceptable with respect to the DFSG. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
Thanks Bas, so how do we get OGC in contact with Debian FTP masters? OSGeo is in this case cheering from the sidelines .. as this kind of gap is something that can be patched. -- Jody Garnett On 16 February 2015 at 16:11, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <[hidden email]> wrote: On 02/16/2015 11:05 PM, Jody Garnett wrote: _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
recommend to contact:
George Percivall
OGC Chief Engineer, CTO
-Peter On 02/17/2015 07:35 AM, Jody Garnett
wrote:
-- Dr. Peter Baumann - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann mail: [hidden email] tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email] tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
Rejoining this conversation after discussion on IRC. I would like to ask the OSGeo board to send a letter or request to the OGC highlighting this as problem. While Carl is doing a great job keeping communication live (thanks!) making a formal request would be something positive OSGeo can do. Peter has provided George Percivall as a contact point, do we have a similar contact point to introduce George to? -- Jody Garnett On 16 February 2015 at 22:44, Peter Baumann <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
On 02/19/2015 01:44 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Peter has provided George Percivall as a contact point, do we have a > similar contact point to introduce George to? On the Debian side George needs to get in touch with the FTP masters: Email contact: [hidden email] https://ftp-master.debian.org/ Please also keep this list and debian-gis in the loop. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
All,
OGC staff have been watching the conversation and we have discussed internally how we might better meet the needs of this community. I’ll get our license experts in touch with the FTP Masters this week. We truly want to do whatever possible to ensure that OGC licensing is not a hurdle! Best Regards, Scott Scott Simmons Executive Director, Standards Program Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) tel +1 970 682 1922 mob +1 970 214 9467 The OGC: Making Location Count…
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
Hi Scott,
On 02/23/2015 05:09 PM, Scott Simmons wrote: > OGC staff have been watching the conversation and we have discussed internally how we might better meet the needs of this community. > I’ll get our license experts in touch with the FTP Masters this week. > We truly want to do whatever possible to ensure that OGC licensing is not a hurdle! Thanks for your willingness to join the discussion with the Debian FTP masters! Please keep the OSGeo Standards and Debian GIS lists in the loop. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
In reply to this post by Scott Simmons
Thanks Scott, we really appreciate it. I have added the topic to the next osgeo board meeting (incase any letter of support would help out on your end). I would also like to thank pycsw for coming forward with this issue so we can work on it together (rather than just hacking around the problem by lazily downloading the schema). -- Jody -- Jody Garnett On 23 February 2015 at 11:09, Scott Simmons <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
In reply to this post by Sebastiaan Couwenberg
Hi Scott,
Here is where I see this conversation stalling (on this list that I follow): On 24/02/2015 6:00 am, Sebastiaan
Couwenberg wrote:
Hi Scott, On 02/23/2015 05:09 PM, Scott Simmons wrote:OGC staff have been watching the conversation and we have discussed internally how we might better meet the needs of this community. I’ll get our license experts in touch with the FTP Masters this week. We truly want to do whatever possible to ensure that OGC licensing is not a hurdle!Thanks for your willingness to join the discussion with the Debian FTP masters! Please keep the OSGeo Standards and Debian GIS lists in the loop. Kind Regards, Bas It sounds like it might be worth revisiting, and potentially drawing upon relationships we have within OSGeo, UbuntuGIS and DebianGIS to see if we can escalate. I suspect Bas might be able to call on a favour or two, or we might be able to call upon the OSGeo Board to reach out. Who are the people within OGC to talk with about this? On 26/11/2015 11:13 pm, Scott Simmons
wrote:
Bas, -- Cameron Shorter, Software and Data Solutions Manager LISAsoft Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf, 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009 P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com, F +61 2 9009 5099 _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |