[Incubator] motion: qfield recommendation for osgeo community project initiative

[Jody Garnett]

 Greg:

Keep in mind that this entire foundation is an outreach and advocacy
activity - we are here to help :)

It is not a pre-condition to have an open source license chosen or applied
correctly (or even possible). Indeed sorting out this aspect of pen source
is often the bulk of the work a project team does during the incubation
process. This is very explicit it the incubation guidelines with many of
the line items to devoted to checking that an open source license has been
selected and applied correctly.

To that end working with a mentor (in private) is an appropriate way to
handle questions that have legal consequences (such as cases where an open
source license may not be possible).

(So need to change incubation process here)

The osgeo "community program" does not have a good approach, and our
example of trying to work with qgield here (and you feeling ignored) shows
a risk of damaging relationships rather than being supportive.  I am afraid
the majority of license questions are not suited to public discussion, much
like security vulnerabilities they are best shared when a solution is
known.

My proposal is that we have some video meetings for such topics, and
interested parties such as yourself volunteer to take part in the
incubation committee.
--
Jody Garnett


On Jul 31, 2023 at 11:39:51 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

> Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> writes:
>
> This is an example where the "osgeo community" program is not really well
>
> thought out by the OSGeo board.
>
>
> :-)
>
> I would suggest that the Board amend the guidelines to require as a
> condition of acceptance into incubation and at all times thereafter that
> the project clearly document licensing and be in good standing with
> respect to having a license regime that meets the Open Source Definition
> (or the Free Software Definition; saying either would be fine) and that
> the project's activities comply with the license obligations from
> third-party code.
>
> I view this as basic and implicit, but it is a fair point that it should
> be adopted formally.
>
> We have no mechanism to work through any difficult topics with potential
>
> applicants. With the full "osgeo project" incubation process there is a
>
> mentor assigned to each project team which can act as a point of contact to
>
> work through difficult issues that are not suitable for public discussion.
>
>
> I can certainly believe some issues are like that.  But I think that the
> heart of this is open source, and that means license compliance as a
> non-negotiable core value.
>
> And indeed our osgeo community struggles with the idea that some topics are
>
> not suitable for public discussion 🙂
>
>
> I can believe that there are some such topics, but I think basic
> questions of licensing that I have been raising should be discussed
> publically when there is an application for any kind of osgeo status on
> the table -- an inherently public act.  (Of course, quite a long time
> has passed, and if had been resolved privately and we arrived at a good
> state, that would have been ok -- but we aren't there.)
>
> I am hoping that the reality is actually ok, but I find it concerning
> that there has been no explanation at all to what I think is a
> reasonable and straightforward question.
>
> I would say it is entirely fine to withdraw the application, work
> through the issues perhaps privately, and then when there is public
> documentation about all the licensing issues, restart it.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20230731/e4b2e7d7/attachment.htm>