I think this is moving in the right direction. That is, rather than having the EDU committee thoroughly review the content - which could be daunting and time consuming - we focus on the technicalities: 1) is the material focused on open source geospatial software? 2) does the material carry a compatible license? 3) does a brief review of the material suggest that it is of good quality (by consensus of the reviewers)? These three questions could be answered very quickly - in a matter of minutes - at which point the authors would be encouraged to use the logo with the brief disclaimer. This places minimal burden on the EDU (sub?)-committee responsible for the reviews so as not to create any bottlenecks, but ensures a few basic common characteristics of the material. - Dan<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:32 PM, <<a href="mailto:cschweik@pubpol.umass.edu">cschweik@pubpol.umass.edu</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi -- we reached a lull on this discussion. Given the importance of this, I've<br>
created a wiki page and tried to summarize - see<br>
<a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Edu_Licensing_and_Logo_Discussion" target="_blank">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Edu_Licensing_and_Logo_Discussion</a><br>
<br>
I think Ned's suggestion was important, that the use of the OSGeo logo be a<br>
free-for-all. The suggestion by Ned and Puneet was we should develop a minimum<br>
set of guidelines to be able to use the OSGeo logo in their content:<br>
<br>
1. An "as-is" disclaimer given that these will not be vetted through a<br>
peer-review process, and something stating the spirit of our effort (Dan's text<br>
is a good start - text on the above wiki page).<br>
<br>
2. Specific guidelines: modules go in open access repository; follows one of a<br>
set of recommended licenses; open source geospatial technologies; what else?<br>
<br>
3. We gratefully accept any content licensed in any way, but the ones with OSGeo<br>
logo would have to abide by the guidelines.<br>
<br>
If people agree, we need someone or subcommittee to take the text Dan proposed<br>
and tweak it, along with adding other guidelines (e.g., suggested licenses).<br>
<br>
Any volunteers? Can it be done in the next week or two so we can keep moving<br>
forward?<br>
<br>
Thanks all for a useful conversation...<br>
<br>
Charlie<br>
<br>
<br>
Quoting P Kishor <<a href="mailto:punk.kish@gmail.com">punk.kish@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
<br>
> On 6/24/08, <a href="mailto:cschweik@pubpol.umass.edu">cschweik@pubpol.umass.edu</a> <<a href="mailto:cschweik@pubpol.umass.edu">cschweik@pubpol.umass.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> > Quoting "Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)" <<a href="mailto:tmitchell@osgeo.org">tmitchell@osgeo.org</a>>:<br>
> ><br>
> > > re: OSGeo branded teaching events. Board had lots of discussion, but<br>
> > > were asking the conference committee to come up with some policy.<br>
> > > The direction EduCom takes may really help set the tone for how<br>
> > > "bigger" issues of policy like this are handled.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Tyler - should we in edu (A) continue this thread (or a subcommittee) to<br>
> come up<br>
> > with our own suggested policy or (B) should an ad-hoc subcommittee between<br>
> edu<br>
> > and the conference group be formed to develop a policy for both?<br>
> ><br>
> > While I still think our edu group's primary issue is still getting *any*<br>
> (OSGeo<br>
> > sanctioned or not) content up in our inventory so that people will come<br>
> and use<br>
> > it, it probably is time for us to do this.<br>
><br>
> I think EduCom should concentrate on getting the content developed,<br>
> and the OSGeo Board should figure out the right mechanism to brand and<br>
> license "official" OSGeo content, be it software, documentation or<br>
> data.<br>
><br>
> Authors should be free to chose whatever license and mechanism they<br>
> want, but if they want the OSGeo imprimatur, they would be required to<br>
> use the OSGeo guidelines (if OSGeo branding were to require license A,<br>
> the authors would be required to use license A. If they decide to use<br>
> license B, OSGeo could still host and advertise the content, but it<br>
> wouldn't be branded OSGeo).<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > Cheers<br>
> ><br>
> > Charlie<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > Tyler<br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Puneet Kishor<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Edu_discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Edu_discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Edu_discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/edu_discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/edu_discuss</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Edu_discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Edu_discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Edu_discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/edu_discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/edu_discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Daniel P. Ames, PhD, PE<br>Geospatial Software Lab<br>Department of Geosciences<br>Idaho State University - Idaho Falls<br><a href="mailto:amesdani@isu.edu">amesdani@isu.edu</a><br>
<a href="http://www.hydromap.com">www.hydromap.com</a><br>