Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] role of foundation with regard to licensing
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:12:43AM -0800, Tyler Mitchell wrote: On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:16:13 -0500 Frank Warmerdam warmer...@pobox.com wrote: I know that in practice, this is probably the way things already are. Why rock the boat? Why assign copyright to OSGeo in the first place [2]? The primary reason to assign copyright to OSGeo is to make it easier to relicense in the future. It is very hard to relicense a project with copyright held by many contributors. There are also reasons not to assign license, foremost being the paperwork overhead involved in contributions agreements for all contributors. Some contributors are also hesitant to surrender their control over their contribution. A few questions about copyright have come across my desk or face-to-face at events this year. Frank, for the sake of others on the list, could you give us an overview of what does it mean to be an OSGeo project if OSGeo itself does not hold the copyright? I think the question was geared toward whether or not OSGeo could guarantee future appropriate licensing of a product that it has arms-length influence over - or would a non-complying project then be rejected somehow? First, once code is released under a given license, that license can't later be 'removed' in any meaningful way: OSGeo will always be able to maintain and distribute code which was openly licensed at any point, which is a requirement of becoming an incubated project. As far as that goes, OSGeo could always continue to provide a home for open source code that has ever gone through the OSGeo incubation process. If a project were to attempt to 'rescind' its openly licensed status, I believe that it would be the job of OSGeo to: 1. Work to prevent such a change from happening. Given the communities we're working with, I think there would be very strong social pressure against any incubated project going from open source to closed source; changes like these typically simply end up leading to a fork, and OSGeo could continue to provide a home to a community built around the open source project. 2. If all else failed, it would be possible for OSGeo to maintain resources for the open source code, but would probably do best to retire the project, similar to how MapBuilder was retired (but obviously for different reasons). Being an OSGeo project means that the project is a participant in the OSGeo community. Sharing information, collaboration, and resources with other projects in the foundation is the primary motivation for OSGeo projects to continue to participate. OSGeo is not a controlling foundation; in this way, it is somewhat unlike the Apache Software Foundation and the Free Software Foundation, which take a direct ownership over the projects. This means that OSGeo's role in exerting control over the direction the project takes is limited. However, OSGeo's role as a parent organization means that OSGeo can act as a shepard to code/projects, regardless of the directions that may be taken otherwise. Becoming an OSGeo project means putting your project out there, and participating in a shared community. As a result, you get to exert some control on OSGeo, and OSGeo works with the project to help it succeed. If a project were to take a path away from open source, OSGeo would act as a shepard for the project unless it was no longer in a position where it made sense to do so, at which point the project would no longer be a participating project in OSGeo. This is just what seems to me to be the most reasonable and logical approach to the situation as it stands today. Best Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] role of foundation with regard to licensing
Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo) wrote: A few questions about copyright have come across my desk or face-to-face at events this year. Frank, for the sake of others on the list, could you give us an overview of what does it mean to be an OSGeo project if OSGeo itself does not hold the copyright? Tyler, I think Chris addressed this quite well. I would add the goal of open source licenses are mostly to remove barriers to utilization based on proprietary rights and control. Once those have been waived by putting something under an open source license it is *relatively* unimportant who holds the copyright rights except that the copyright holder can choose to also offer the code under alternative licenses. Projects that don't assign copyright generally cannot be relicensed due to the dispersion of the copyright holders, though individual contributors might be able to make use of fragments of their contributions in other contexts under other licenses. I think the question was geared toward whether or not OSGeo could guarantee future appropriate licensing of a product that it has arms-length influence over - or would a non-complying project then be rejected somehow? Chris addressed this as well. Basically we would be prepared to support a fork that remained open source if a project attempted to go closed. I don't really see this as a serious concern in practice, but even in theory there is no taking something away once it was open sourced. Just trying to remember some of the other questions I've heard. Are any of the above realistic concerns? I don't see any reason to be very concerned about OSGeo having control, or any need to guarantee things will stay open. Best regards, -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush| Geospatial Programmer for Rent ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] role of foundation with regard to licensing
Hey- Frank Warmerdam wrote: Tim, The PSC is considered to be a committee of the foundation, and in particular it's representative is considered to be an officer of the foundation (corporation) giving them some ability to speak for the foundation legally. Ok. I didn't get this from a read of http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Project_Steering_Committees (the part about consideration as a committee and PSC rep as officer of foundation). I think this answers my question. I didn't know how formal the arrangement was (or even needs to be). I imagine this would happen with some constraints from the foundation (e.g. OSI approved licenses only) I know that in practice, this is probably the way things already are. Why rock the boat? Why assign copyright to OSGeo in the first place [2]? The primary reason to assign copyright to OSGeo is to make it easier to relicense in the future. It is very hard to relicense a project with copyright held by many contributors. Right. The reason I was asking was because I assumed the copyright assignment was primarily about relicensing. Finding no information specifically on how the foundation determines what license to use, I was unsure how things would go in practice. Sounds like the process goes like this (if OSGeo holds copyright): 1) PSC votes on license 2) PSC chair advises OSGeo board 3) OSGeo board decides on license Perhaps all this seems obvious. As the chair of the OpenLayers PSC, I was asking for clarification on the process because the PSC has been discussing both copyright assignment and relicensing. I just wanted to know who to talk to if/when we make any decisions. Sounds like the OSGeo board. Just added http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Licensing All mushy language. If someone wants to firm it up (or delete it), please do. Thanks, Tim There are also reasons not to assign license, foremost being the paperwork overhead involved in contributions agreements for all contributors. Some contributors are also hesitant to surrender their control over their contribution. Best regards, -- Tim Schaub OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] role of foundation with regard to licensing
Tim Schaub wrote: Sounds like the process goes like this (if OSGeo holds copyright): 1) PSC votes on license 2) PSC chair advises OSGeo board 3) OSGeo board decides on license Tim, Actually the steps would be: 1) PSC votes on license 2) PSC chair declares motion passed, and directs the license update on behalf of OSGeo. You could notify the board as a courtesy but it isn't required. Best regards, -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush| Geospatial Programmer for Rent ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] role of foundation with regard to licensing
Brian Russo wrote: So to sum up the themes of this thread.. OSGeo really just acts as an administrative body within with projects can have some legal existence, but effectively has no say on day-to-day tasks involving projects, etc. The actual direction of the projects sponsored by OSGeo is really the responsibility of the relevant committee/developers. This is now my understanding as well. Chris (Schmidt) and I had a discussion about this the other day. I was interested in seeing if the OSGeo member projects' steering committees could actually be recognized as some sort of legal entity by becoming a member project. It sounds like the PSC representative for a member project automagically becomes an officer of the foundation, giving them the ability to make licensing decisions on behalf of the foundation. That's tidy. Tim Miss anything relevant? - bri On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Frank Warmerdam warmer...@pobox.com mailto:warmer...@pobox.com wrote: Tim Schaub wrote: Sounds like the process goes like this (if OSGeo holds copyright): 1) PSC votes on license 2) PSC chair advises OSGeo board 3) OSGeo board decides on license Tim, Actually the steps would be: 1) PSC votes on license 2) PSC chair declares motion passed, and directs the license update on behalf of OSGeo. You could notify the board as a courtesy but it isn't required. Best regards, -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmer...@pobox.com mailto:warmer...@pobox.com light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush| Geospatial Programmer for Rent ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Tim Schaub OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
