Re: pycsw_1.10.0+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Dear FTP masters, Thanks for taking time to review pycsw. On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg sebas...@xs4all.nl wrote: One result of the discussion about tinyows was that OGC schemas don't fall under the Software Notice but the Document Notice. This makes them non-free (no modification) and tinyows had to move to non-free. I am afraid that pycsw has to do this as well. That seems to be the wrong way around. The OGC schemas fall under the Software Notice as documented in the OGC LegalFAQ [1], the testcases appear to fall under the Document Notices (although the CITE test may have a different license than Document or Software Notice, I've never received feedback from OGC on my questions). Just for clarity, pycsw only contains the schemas, and not the testcases mentioned for tinyOWS. I would like to point out that regarding these schemas there is actually no difference between the licenses used by W3C and OGC (apart from the copyrightholders). Indeed, the OGC software license [2] is identical to the W3C license [3] (OSGI approved [4]). The document license for OGC [5] is again identical to the document license for W3C [6]. W3C schemas (eg xml.xsd) are used by *many* debian packages. Is there an exemption in W3C which I missed (and which we could suggest to OGC), or is there a more general problem here? I think standards are one of the cases where I find the DFSG #4 exemption is defendable. Kind Regards, Johan [1] http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/legalfaq#Software [2] http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/software [3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231 [4] http://opensource.org/licenses/W3C.php [5] http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/document [6] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231 ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
OGC schemas, licensing non-free [Was: pycsw_1.10.0+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED]
Hi Johan, On 11/19/2014 10:08 PM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote: Just for clarity, pycsw only contains the schemas, and not the testcases mentioned for tinyOWS. I would like to point out that regarding these schemas there is actually no difference between the licenses used by W3C and OGC (apart from the copyrightholders). Indeed, the OGC software license [2] is identical to the W3C license [3] (OSGI approved [4]). The document license for OGC [5] is again identical to the document license for W3C [6]. W3C schemas (eg xml.xsd) are used by *many* debian packages. Is there an exemption in W3C which I missed (and which we could suggest to OGC), or is there a more general problem here? I think standards are one of the cases where I find the DFSG #4 exemption is defendable. Regarding the above, and what you wrote on #osgeo-live: 23:09 johanvdw I actually talked about it with Bart Delathouwer from OGC 23:09 johanvdw just earlier today 23:10 johanvdw I'll try to convince the ftp-masters that it can fall under DFSG 4 exemption 23:10 johanvdw In the mean time upload to non-free Do know if Bart is planning to come to FOSDEM? I would love to have a face to face conversation about the OGC licensing and Debian. I asked around last year if any of the Geo people knew if any OGC folks were around, but it didn't seem to be the case. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: OGC schemas, licensing non-free [Was: pycsw_1.10.0+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED]
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg sebas...@xs4all.nl wrote: Hi Johan, On 11/19/2014 10:08 PM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote: Just for clarity, pycsw only contains the schemas, and not the testcases mentioned for tinyOWS. I would like to point out that regarding these schemas there is actually no difference between the licenses used by W3C and OGC (apart from the copyrightholders). Indeed, the OGC software license [2] is identical to the W3C license [3] (OSGI approved [4]). The document license for OGC [5] is again identical to the document license for W3C [6]. W3C schemas (eg xml.xsd) are used by *many* debian packages. Is there an exemption in W3C which I missed (and which we could suggest to OGC), or is there a more general problem here? I think standards are one of the cases where I find the DFSG #4 exemption is defendable. Regarding the above, and what you wrote on #osgeo-live: 23:09 johanvdw I actually talked about it with Bart Delathouwer from OGC 23:09 johanvdw just earlier today 23:10 johanvdw I'll try to convince the ftp-masters that it can fall under DFSG 4 exemption 23:10 johanvdw In the mean time upload to non-free Do know if Bart is planning to come to FOSDEM? I would love to have a face to face conversation about the OGC licensing and Debian. I asked around last year if any of the Geo people knew if any OGC folks were around, but it didn't seem to be the case. I'll invite him, but I don't know what his plans are. At least he knows since yesterday that we are organizing this track. For the record, he likes tinkering with debian on this raspberry pi - you have conversation starter :-) Anyway: it will be hard to convince him that it is useful to allow modifications of the XSD's (Why on earth would you want to do that). And I actually think that the license exemption in the their FAQ allowing it given that you use a different namespace is not unreasonable, and very close to DFSG #4 exemption. If we propose a wording to OGC which both covers their concerns (don't just change an XSD and distritbute it as if it is the original standard) and which is acceptable to the FTP masters, I think OGC may confirm this interpretation. For me the ball is in their (FTP-masters) camp. If I read the original mail for tinyows [1] they have a few concerns: 1) questions whether the Software license is DFSG free I think the correct answer is it is free. At least according to OSI and Fedora it is. It is used by many other packages in debian (as the W3C software license). 2) Whether the license FAQ is really part of the license: I think it clearly is, it is linked from the page and mentioned in the license. Question: Do the FTP-master agree? Do we need a seperate statement from OGC that it really is part of the license? 3) 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. I think is not a clear signal here. Can we get a clear answer from the FRP masters? If it is not covered by the compromise, can the FTP masters suggest a wording that would be covered by the exemption? So we can propose it to OGC? Johan [1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2014-January/017321.html ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: OGC schemas, licensing non-free [Was: pycsw_1.10.0+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED]
On 11/28/2014 10:14 PM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg
sebas...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Hi Johan,
On 11/19/2014 10:08 PM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
Just for clarity, pycsw only contains the schemas, and not the
testcases mentioned for tinyOWS.
I would like to point out that regarding these schemas there is
actually no difference between the licenses used by W3C and OGC (apart
from the copyrightholders). Indeed, the OGC software license [2] is
identical to the W3C license [3] (OSGI approved [4]).
The document license for OGC [5] is again identical to the document
license for W3C [6]. W3C schemas (eg xml.xsd) are used by *many*
debian packages. Is there an exemption in W3C which I missed (and
which we could suggest to OGC), or is there a more general problem
here? I think standards are one of the cases where I find the DFSG #4
exemption is defendable.
Regarding the above, and what you wrote on #osgeo-live:
23:09 johanvdw I actually talked about it with Bart Delathouwer from OGC
23:09 johanvdw just earlier today
23:10 johanvdw I'll try to convince the ftp-masters that it can fall
under DFSG 4 exemption
23:10 johanvdw In the mean time upload to non-free
Do know if Bart is planning to come to FOSDEM? I would love to have a
face to face conversation about the OGC licensing and Debian. I asked
around last year if any of the Geo people knew if any OGC folks were
around, but it didn't seem to be the case.
I'll invite him, but I don't know what his plans are. At least he
knows since yesterday that we are organizing this track. For the
record, he likes tinkering
with debian on this raspberry pi - you have conversation starter :-)
I'd skip the smalltalk and get straight to the point, asking about his
views on the OGC {Document,Software} Notice vs DFSG issues. And if he
could join the thread and state the OGC position to the FTP masters.
Anyway: it will be hard to convince him that it is useful to allow
modifications of the XSD's (Why on earth would you want to do that).
And I actually think that the license exemption in the their FAQ
allowing it given that you use a different namespace is not
unreasonable, and very close to DFSG #4 exemption.
I also think that limiting modification for the OGC schemas is not
unreasonable in the context of standards. Allowing modification would
just make it easier to include the software in Debian.
If we propose a wording to OGC which both covers their concerns (don't
just change an XSD and distritbute it as if it is the original
standard) and which is acceptable to the FTP masters, I think OGC may
confirm this interpretation.
For me the ball is in their (FTP-masters) camp.
I'm also waiting for a reply from FTP master regarding the OGC schemas.
But please note that I removed FTP masters from the recipients of this
subthread.
If I read the original mail for tinyows [1] they have a few concerns:
1) questions whether the Software license is DFSG free
I think the correct answer is it is free. At least according to OSI
and Fedora it is. It is used by many other packages in debian (as the
W3C software license).
I also think the OGC Software Notice complies with the DFSG, but only
the FTP masters can give a final word on that.
2) Whether the license FAQ is really part of the license:
I think it clearly is, it is linked from the page and mentioned in the
license. Question: Do the FTP-master agree? Do we need a seperate
statement from OGC that it really is part of the license?
To clarify these questions I'd love for someone from OGC to join the
conversation with the FTP masters.
I also think that the license FAQ clearly confirms that the OGC schemas
are licensed under the terms of the OGC Software Notice.
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.
I think is not a clear signal here. Can we get a clear answer from
the FRP masters? If it is not covered by the compromise, can the FTP
masters suggest a wording that would be covered by the exemption? So
we can propose it to OGC?
If we can get Thorsten Alteholz and Bart Delathouwer together at FOSDEM
we could have this conversation in person. It may speed up the process.
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
___
Pkg-grass-devel mailing list
Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
pycsw_1.10.0+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Dear Maintainer, unfortunately I have to reject your package. One result of the discussion about tinyows was that OGC schemas don't fall under the Software Notice but the Document Notice. This makes them non-free (no modification) and tinyows had to move to non-free. I am afraid that pycsw has to do this as well. Thorsten === Please feel free to respond to this email if you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if you upload new files which address our concerns. ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
Re: pycsw_1.10.0+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
One result of the discussion about tinyows was that OGC schemas don't fall under the Software Notice but the Document Notice. This makes them non-free (no modification) and tinyows had to move to non-free. I am afraid that pycsw has to do this as well. That seems to be the wrong way around. The OGC schemas fall under the Software Notice as documented in the OGC LegalFAQ [1], the testcases appear to fall under the Document Notices (although the CITE test may have a different license than Document or Software Notice, I've never received feedback from OGC on my questions). To adress the TinyOWS issue, upstream has moved the testcases to a separate repository and won't include it in tarball at the next release. This should allow TinyOWS to move to main after the package is updated to strip the testcases as is done in the upstream git repo. If the FTP masters consider the OGC schemas to fall under the Document Notice despite what the OGC LegalFAQ says, then we need to move a lot of GIS packages to non-free because they also contain the schemas. [1] http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/legalfaq#DTD Kind Regards, Bas ___ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel
