On Sat, 4 Jan 2014, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
To my best understanding only the OGC Standards documents fall under the
OGC Document Notice.
Schemas and software are covered by the OGC Software Notice.
Ok, the first paragraph of the Software Notice says:
By obtaining, using and/or copying this work, you (the licensee) agree
that you have read, understood, and will comply with the following terms
So in my understanding the enduser has to accept the conditions of this
notice before he gets the work ("By obtaining (...) this work you agree
that you have read, (...) and will comply (...)). I guess this is not
possible with Debians package management.
At least he needs to comply when he uses it. I haven't looked that
deeply at your package, but does it tell the user about this?
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
Ok, if this entry of the FAQ is really part of the license, I see another
problem. The first sentence says that schemas are covered by the Document
Notice (= no modifications allowed = non-free). Only if you use a
different namespace, you may apply the Software Notice and do
modifications. I think this is against DFSG#3 and not covered by the
compromise in DFSG#4.
The WFS tests are not explicitly mentioned as falling under the OGC
Software Notice. So it can be argued that because they are conformance
tests for the OGC Standards that OGC doesn't allow their modification.
On the other hand the conformance tests are intended to be included in
OGC compliant open source software, which is the reason for the more
liberal OGC Software Notice.
We could speculate about this, but I think a clear statement from OGC is
Do you consider the OGC Sofware Notice used in this change to comply
with the DFSG?
I would say no, but the opinion of other ftpmasters is very welcome :-).
Pkg-grass-devel mailing list