OGC XML schemas and FOSS4G software distribution

[Tom Kralidis]

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

[Even Rouault-2]

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

[jody.garnett]

I noticed the issue makes the OGC FAQ:

* http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/legalfaq#DTD

5.10 Is a schema or document definition (DTD) covered by the document or software terms?

Schemas (and DTDs) are frequently part of our specifications and seemingly fall under the document copyright terms. However, as long as you do not use the same formal namespace or public identifier to identify that modified OGC schema/DTD (which might confuse applications), you may treat the schema/DTD under the software terms. This means that you are permitted to make a derivative or modified OGC schema/DTD, but even under the software terms you are obligated to include/retain the OGC copyright notice. We further appreciate a couple sentences regarding who made the modifications, when, and what changes were made in the original DTD -- a common software documentation practice.

We expect to revisit this topic as metadata schemas become an increasingly important part of OGC specifications and as the metadata schema definition capabilities of XML and other XML technologies advance.

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). 

On 6 February 2015 at 08:43, Tom Kralidis <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

[Greg Troxel]

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

[jody.garnett]

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

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).

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

[Carl Reed]

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

 

 

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).

 

---

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

[jody.garnett]

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

On 9 February 2015 at 11:45, Carl Reed <[hidden email]> wrote:

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:

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

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

[Greg Troxel]

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

[Sebastiaan Couwenberg]

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

[Tom Kralidis]

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

[jody.garnett]

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.

Schemas (and DTDs) are frequently part of our specifications and seemingly fall under the

document copyright terms.

Applications may use the schema/DTD for under the software license. We ask that care be taken

when making a derivative or modified schema/DTD to preserve interoperability.

As an example a schema/DTD used for internal validation may be modified to validate additional

optional vendor options without affecting interoperability. This has no impact on interoperability

between applications and the resulting schema/DTD remains embedded in the application.

If publishing a modified schema/DTD it no longer qualifies as an OGC schema/DTD and we ask

that a unique formal namespace or public identifier be used to prevent application confusion.

This request is based on the restrictions of XML technology rather than a license restriction.

When using the software terms you are obligated to include/retain the OGC copyright notice. We

further appreciate a couple sentences regarding who made the modifications, when, and what

changes were made in the original DTD -- a common software documentation practice.

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

On 16 February 2015 at 12:14, Tom Kralidis <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

[Sebastiaan Couwenberg]

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

[jody.garnett]

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.

On 16 February 2015 at 16:11, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

[Peter Baumann]

recommend to contact:

George Percivall

OGC Chief Engineer, CTO

[hidden email]

http://www.linkedin.com/in/gpercivall

-Peter

On 02/17/2015 07:35 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

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.

On 16 February 2015 at 16:11, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

[jody.garnett]

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?

On 16 February 2015 at 22:44, Peter Baumann <[hidden email]> wrote:

recommend to contact:

George Percivall

OGC Chief Engineer, CTO

[hidden email]

http://www.linkedin.com/in/gpercivall

-Peter

On 02/17/2015 07:35 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:

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:
> 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

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: [hidden email]
   tel: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-3178" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone], fax: <a href="tel:%2B49-421-200-493178" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: [hidden email]
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: <a href="tel:%2B49-173-5837882" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]
"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

[Sebastiaan Couwenberg]

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

[Scott Simmons]

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 [phone]

mob [phone]

[hidden email]

The OGC: Making Location Count…

www.opengeospatial.org

On Feb 19, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

[Sebastiaan Couwenberg]

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

[jody.garnett]

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

On 23 February 2015 at 11:09, Scott Simmons <[hidden email]> wrote:

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 <a href="tel:%2B1%20970%20682%201922" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

mob <a href="tel:%2B1%20970%20214%209467" value="[phone]" target="_blank">[phone]

[hidden email]

The OGC: Making Location Count…

www.opengeospatial.org

On Feb 19, 2015, at 12:32 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards

[Cameron Shorter]

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,

We never heard back from the Debian folks on issues with OGC license terms. I would love to engage them, but admit that I am at a loss as to how to progress!

Best Regards.

Scott

Scott Simmons

Executive Director, Standards Program

Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)

tel [phone]

mob [phone]

[hidden email]

The OGC: Making Location Count…

www.opengeospatial.org

On Nov 26, 2015, at 12:44 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 26-11-15 06:56, Cameron Shorter wrote:

The OGC has technical and planning committee meetings in Sydney (my home
town), next week, 30 Nov - 4 Dec 2016.
http://www.opengeospatial.org/event/1512tc

I'm hoping to bump into some of the OGC attendees while in town. (In
particular there is a GeoRabble event I will be at).

It might also be a good chance to talk about any OSGeo/OGC collaboration.

In particular, is the OGC interested in including the TEAM certification
engine on OSGeo-Live? We have just kicked of the build process for our next
release, and now would be an opportune time to discuss including the
application.

Also, we have previously discussed integrating OGC Standards documentation
with OSGeo-Live documentation. Is the development of documentation of OGC
standards still progressing?
It might be a good chance to discuss that too.

If the OGC documentation is licensed under the terms of the OGC Document
Notice this is problematic due to the non-free nature of the license.

I'd like to know if OGC has been able to get in touch with the Debian
project to discuss the issues with the OGC Document & Software notices.
There hasn't been any public progress since this was last discussed on
this list ('OGC XML schemas and FOSS4G software distribution' thread).

Kind Regards,

Bas

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards