[Board] Re: Statement of OSGeo Legal Support

Mon Nov 5 15:39:13 PST 2007

That's fair -- and btw, like everyone else, I appreciate the efforts  
to bring this to all of our attention. These are important issues to  
be discussing, and more importantly to get resolution on.

Dave

On 5-Nov-07, at 5:20 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:

> Dave,
> I acknowledge and appreciate the difficulty of guessing all the  
> legal possibilities we may face in the future. But if OSGeo doesn't  
> face it, OSGeo moves the risk management down to the projects.
>
> This is not bad, so long as we are clear about OSGeo's position.   
> From my reading, it seems that OSGeo is not resourced to provide  
> anything but elementary legal support to projects, due to  
> complexity of licenses and minimal access to legal resources. So  
> I'm hoping that OSGeo can make such a statement.
> Going back to my previous request:
> * Define the options of what can be supported and implementation of  
> these options. (Luis Villa + legal rep)
> * Board votes on options
> * Board makes statement (on webpage)
> * Projects like geotools make qualified licensing decisions
>
> Dave McIlhagga wrote:
>> As Frank has mentioned previously - the board has been fairly  
>> quiet on this issue, but I think the reason is that it is a tricky  
>> issue to both get ones head around, and because no one is a  
>> lawyer ... I for one feel like I'm wading into territory I don't  
>> know a lot about.
>>
>> Having said that - I will throw out a couple of thoughts, which  
>> folks can take or leave.
>>
>>
>> 1. Background / History
>>
>> The foundation was setup as a home for high quality OSGeo projects  
>> of many types, forms and histories. From brand new web mapping  
>> projects (MapGuide, OpenLayers) to the grand-daddy of GIS --  
>> GRASS. Projects with strong academic and corporate grass roots, to  
>> one man projects like GDAL/OGR which are used in almost every  
>> proprietary geospatial product on the planet.
>>
>> They also cover the spectrum of OSI (or near OSI licenses).
>>
>>
>> 2. How do we handle this diversity?
>>
>> This is a very unique challenge quite different then say the FSF  
>> or Apache Foundation where common philosophy permeates the  
>> organizations, and common licenses to go with them.
>>
>> With GeoSpatial being the only common link -- it makes it  
>> extremely difficult to figure out what a consistent policy should  
>> be when it comes to contributions agreements, legal protection,  
>> etc.. As a consequence, we've chosen a route of allowing each  
>> project a great deal of autonomy in determining it's course, while  
>> setting up a minimal amount of consistency in terms of:
>>
>> a) Project Steering Committee / Management
>> b) Code review and due diligence
>> c) Evidence of a Healthy Functioning Project
>>
>> Because of this minimalist approach -- it becomes extremely  
>> difficult to justify spending a great deal of resources/energy  
>> towards a single project as a foundation -- such as the foundation  
>> funding legal support for a particular project. The reason is a  
>> combination of fairness, and appropriateness for the board  
>> imposing substantial policy. What's appropriate for one project  
>> may be completely inappropriate for another.
>>
>>
>> My sense is that the Board and OSGeo needs to spend it's time and  
>> resources dedicated to issues that are OSGeo-wide, and encouraging  
>> individual projects to take responsibility for their respective  
>> projects. It's a tough line to know what's on one side or the  
>> other - which is why the board needs a great deal of latitude to  
>> deal with situations on a case by case basis.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure how this helps the particular situation with GeoTools  
>> - but I hope it shows why a clear cut statement of legal support  
>> for projects is tricky.
>>
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3-Nov-07, at 4:38 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>
>>> Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>>>   Instead that as situations come up the
>>>>> board would consider them on a case by case basis and get  
>>>>> involved or not
>>>>> as is appropriate and possible.
>>>> This statement is a bit weak. It is ok to consider case by case,  
>>>> but we should set down high level guidelines, or principles.  
>>>> Some like Google's "Do no evil".
>>>> I'm sure I'm missing lots, but something like the following  
>>>> might be a starting point:
>>>> OSGeo believes in:
>>>> * Providing quality Open Source Software for our users.
>>>> * Enabling vibrant, engaging, safe communities for our developers.
>>>> * Helping our projects improve
>>> >
>>>> OSGeo does this by:
>>>> * Ensuring our projects follow good development and management  
>>>> processes.
>>>> * Providing legal advice to projects to support project processes.
>>>> * Speaking on behalf of projects on legal matters. Eg. Advising  
>>>> a copyrite violator. (Better words required here)
>>>> * Providing infrastructure
>>>> * Providing branding, promotion and networking opportunities.
>>>
>>> Cameron,
>>>
>>> While the above are true, most of them are not particularly
>>> germaine to the topic of legal support and I am hesitant to
>>> allow a statement on legal support become a definition of the
>>> whole mission and goals of OSGeo.
>>>
>>>> As yet, OSGeo is not resourced to provide:
>>>> * Legal representation on behalf of projects or members of  
>>>> projects.
>>>> * ...
>>>
>>> I don't really agree with that.  We have *limited* resources to
>>> provide legal representation for our projects (and to some extent
>>> by extension to members).
>>>
>>>> As I gain a greater understanding of the issues, this is  
>>>> sounding like a good idea. The FSF is set up specifically to  
>>>> address Open Source legal issues.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that the FSF was set up to support development
>>> of the GNU Project and to promote the ideals of free software in
>>> general.  Legal issues are one aspect of that.
>>>
>>> > Lets make use of it.
>>>> There is a good chance we could broker a teaming arrangement  
>>>> with FSF of sorts. Maybe we can set up an OSGeo division of FSF,  
>>>> sort of like a satellite office.
>>>
>>> I am dubious that the FSF would accept an organization with "Open  
>>> Source"
>>> in it's title as a "division" of FSF.  The chances of my agreeing  
>>> for
>>> OSGeo and the GDAL project to be subject to the direction of Richard
>>> Stallman are also very small.  I claim that the FSF takes an  
>>> approach to
>>> free software that is significantly less "inclusive" than OSGeo  
>>> attempts
>>> to take and I am dubious that we could work together at more than a
>>> tactical level.
>>>
>>> That said, it is not implausible that particular OSGeo projects  
>>> could also
>>> seek affiliation with the FSF.
>>>
>>>>> I promised to draft a statement and to put it out where all the  
>>>>> board can
>>>>> consider it before we declare it policy.  My suggested  
>>>>> statement is:
>>>>>
>>>>> """
>>>>> OSGeo intends to be a legal representative of it's projects, and
>>>>> to act legally on their behalf as appropriate.  However, OSGeo
>>>>> reserves the right, at board discretion, to decide what legal
>>>>> resources to allocate and to what particular issues to allocate  
>>>>> them.
>>>
>>> Cameron writes:
>>>> I don't think this line is good enough as it doesn't state what  
>>>> is in, and what is out of the arrangement.
>>>
>>> "Legal Resources" are in, and allocation is at the discretion of
>>> the board.  What do you mean by in and out?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If an OSGeo project, or developer is sued, or legally threatened,
>>>>> on a matter related to an OSGeo project they may seek OSGeo legal
>>>>> support.  OSGeo's board will decide what resources, if any, to  
>>>>> provide
>>>>> to support the project or developer.
>>>> Ok, if linked to guidelines the board should use. Guidelines  
>>>> should be something like:
>>>> OSGeo are likely to provide legal advice and will endenvour to  
>>>> avoid taking matters to court.
>>>
>>> Well, as soon as we try to write down guidelines it is harder to
>>> reach consensus.  I don't think the suggested guidelines.  If I were
>>> going to actually write guidelines I'd want them to be more in depth
>>> and soon we would have trouble having consensus on them.
>>>
>>>> Lastly,
>>>> Thankyou Frank and others for dedicating so much time to this. I  
>>>> see it as dirty but essential work.
>>>
>>> Thanks.  And I appreciate your continued effort on this  
>>> discussion.  It is
>>> a great deal more constructive than just throwing up a suggestion  
>>> and
>>> then wondering why others didn't run with it.
>>>
>>> I shall now endevour to step back from this discussion for a  
>>> couple days
>>> to give other board members a chance to speak.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> -- 
>>> --------------------------------------- 
>>> +--------------------------------------
>>> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,  
>>> warmerdam at pobox.com
>>> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
>>> and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http:// 
>>> osgeo.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Board mailing list
>>> Board at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Cameron Shorter
> Geospatial Systems Architect
> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>
> Think Globally, Fix Locally
> Commercial Support for Geospatial Open Source Software
> http://www.lisasoft.com/LISAsoft/SupportedProducts.html
>
>