Hey Martin, Has there been any movement on this?
Adam On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Martin Desruisseaux < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello Chris > > Thanks for replying. I will fill a LEGAL JIRA issue in the next few days > and let this list know. We still have a few weeks before I reach the point > of including the EPSG database in SIS, so the timing should be fine. > > Cheers, > > Martin > > Le 20/10/13 20:54, Chris Mattmann a écrit : > > Hey Martin, >> >> Understood. >> >> Can you file an Apache LEGAL JIRA re: the below and ask for a decision >> citing the below specific context? Based on your feedback I agree with you >> but would like the Legal committee at Apache to document/accept/agree with >> our interpretation. >> >> Cheers, >> Chris >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Martin Desruisseaux >> <martin.desruisseaux@geomatys.**fr<[email protected]> >> > >> Organization: Geomatys >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Date: Sunday, October 20, 2013 11:45 AM >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: EPSG terms of use >> >> Hello Chris and all >>> >>> Le 19/10/13 21:33, Chris Mattmann a écrit : >>> >>>> Unfortunately doesn't seem to be compat with apache. What about >>>> asking for them to license as ALv2 or some other Category A >>>> compat license? >>>> >>>> Do you know the DB's authors? >>>> >>> I know the chairman of OGP's Geodesy Subcommittee, the committee >>> responsible for the EPSG Geodetic Parameter Dataset. However I think >>> that it would be hard to get a license change. OGP (not to be confused >>> with OGC) is "International Association of Oil & Gas Producers" and >>> members are big companies like Shell. What we may get however is, maybe, >>> some statement that clarify how OGP see their conditions in the context >>> of Apache (I don't know enough about legal for seeing exactly what it >>> could be. Maybe something saying that OGP see no problems in Apache >>> bundling the EPSG database in SIS). >>> >>> I would like to put some points for establishing the context: >>> >>> * We are talking about data rather than software, so I don't know if >>> the same license classification apply... >>> * Oil & Gas producers maintain and provide the EPSG database free of >>> charge because the cost of installing a drilling platform in the >>> wrong location is too high. Since they rely on map and data produced >>> by various actors (national map agencies, etc.), it is in their best >>> interest that those actors had access to the most accurate CRS >>> definitions when they created their data. >>> * The EPSG database, or something equivalent, is absolutely crucial to >>> a Spatial Information System. Apache SIS without EPSG would probably >>> lost a lot of its interest. For example EPSG codes are the the-facto >>> standard for specifying CRS in most web services (WMS, etc.). >>> * I'm not aware of any freely available alternative to the EPSG >>> database, and it would be impossible for us to create one. >>> * OpenSouce and commercial products like Proj.4, PostGIS, GDAL, >>> MapServer, Geoserver, OpenStreetMap, ESRI, Oracle Spatial and many >>> other all include the EPSG database in derived forms. I think that >>> basically all major GIS products around the world include the EPSG >>> database in one form or the other. >>> >>> >>> Keeping the above in mind, my interpretation of EPSG conditions are: >>> >>> 1) If someone modify a "significant field" in the EPSG database (e.g. >>> the numerical value of a projection parameter), then OGP asks that the >>> modified database is not called "EPSG database" anymore. This seems a >>> very reasonable request to me, since the purpose is to protect the EPSG >>> credibility. Isn't Apache doing something similar? I mean, Apache >>> enforces trademark on its name. So if someone was forking an Apache >>> project and broke it badly, it seems to me that the Apache foundation >>> would not let the broken project calls itself "Apache Foo"... >>> >>> 2) Anyone can sell EPSG + SIS for profit. But EPSG conditions ask to not >>> extract the EPSG from SIS and sell only that part, without any added >>> value. I realize that this condition may be the most problematic one for >>> Apache, but I don't see why someone would download Apache SIS and >>> extract only the EPSG files, without keeping anything else (he could >>> download directly from the EPSG web site instead)... I have not hear >>> about anyone doing something like that with Proj.4 (MIT license) for >>> instance (but admittedly the Proj.4 files are extensively transformed >>> compared to the original EPSG files). >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >> >
