<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Regarding OSI Licenses, I understand this Jody.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">However this position does not cater for undesirable proprietary dual license aspects.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Again the Rasdaman example. From memory, at the time of the incubation vote, this product was subject to dual licensing, the open source variant using approved OSI licences. However the open source version was severely constrained, particularly from aspects that improved product performance.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Consequently, at the time of the incubation vote, one member of the Incubation Committee described the open source variant as “crippleware”.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Now I don’t want to make this about one product.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’d like to see us have a clear position to avoid such problems in the future. I don’t think that we can just say that we don’t accept the Benevelent Dictator model and that solves all problems.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I also don’t want to see us chase away involvement in projects and project sponsorship by proprietary organisations. This would be foolish.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I have a similar view on CLAs. If used appropriately, they can protect a codebase and make it easier to manage IP arrangements should it become necessary. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But I also understand that they can be abused with undesirable outcomes for an open source community. There are many examples of these that we can all recall quite easily. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Kind regards,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bruce</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 24 Sep 2021, at 02:37, Jody Garnett <<a href="mailto:jody.garnett@gmail.com" class="">jody.garnett@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Bruce:<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We presently follow the OSI approved list, much easier to follow then to manage our own criteria.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">However this discussion appears to be around governance and control; and I think we are very clear on these topics. Even during the Rasdaman discussion we were very clear that the benevolent dictator model did not meet our goals for open governance. It was frustrating this the discussion took so long: benevolent dictator is of course a valid model, it is just not one that matches our ideals.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">OSGeo does support (and sometimes require) CLAs providing asymmetrical rights on code bases such as GeoTools and GeoServer (<a href="https://www.osgeo.org/about/licenses/" class="">https://www.osgeo.org/about/licenses/</a>). This increased permissions for the PSC has allowed these committees to donate fixes to more permissive projects such as GeoServer (GPL with EPL exception) --> GeoTools (LGPL); or GeoTools (LGPL) to JTS (BSD). The use of CLA to establish asymmetrical rights has a community building use in this respect; however the same tool is used to enable some of the harmful (to the open community) practices being remarked on.</div><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It is a shame folks like Elasticsearch and MapBox abandoning open source, as I really appreciate it as a way to produce excellent software and manage risk across a wide range of stakeholders. In many cases the justifications feel self imposed. If an organization is not seeing enough contributions to justify continuing a project as open source, I can point to an organization that did not setup equal governance to promote contributions between equals.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Personally I like free-software, and open-source software held by a vendor neutral organization (such as OSGeo). Everything else seems a bit risky.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">OSGeo does not provide such a hard line, but by stressing projects need to be willing for others to take part in governance (no benevolent dictator model) I believe the foundation is clear in what kind of project we support. There is a reason projects such as MapBoxGL or Cesium did not apply to be part of OSGeo after all.</div><div class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">--</div><div class="">Jody Garnett</div></div></div></div></div></div><br class=""></div></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 17:31, Bruce Bannerman <<a href="mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo@gmail.com" class="">bruce.bannerman.osgeo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Hi Jody,</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">These thoughts extend on your ‘there can be only one’ comment below.</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">I think that we in the Incubation Committee and our potential future incubating projects would benefit from our better defining what type of open source project we will support.</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">Greg Troxel contributed valuable insight into a discussion that we were having in the OSGeo Standards list on the proposed OGC/OSGeo MOU. See [1] for context.</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">With apologies to Greg for my paraphrasing, I understand Greg’s arguments to strongly differentiate between open source projects that are subject to proprietary relicensing and those that are not. </div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">Greg contributed the blog link at [2] as part of the discussion. This is an insightful read.</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">If we had had a clear policy on the type of open source project that we are willing to support during the unfortunate situation with the Rasdaman Incubation vote, we could have avoided a lot of the angst and miscommunication that occurred on both sides.</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">So before we progress too much further on the ‘Platforms’ discussion, I think that it would be beneficial to resolve the OSGeo Incubation supported open source model issue definitively. I believe that this will make it much easier to progress the platforms discussion, and future incubations.</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">While I have concerns over the interpretation of what a Contributions Licence is, I believe that the links at [1] and [2] are a good starting point to get this sorted out.</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">Kind regards,</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">Bruce</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div dir="ltr" class="">[1] <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/2021-September/001274.html" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/2021-September/001274.html</a></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">[2] <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality/" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px" target="_blank" class="">https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality/</a> </div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 17 Sep 2021, at 01:59, Jody Garnett <<a href="mailto:jody.garnett@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">jody.garnett@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">It is kind of like the “highlander-principle” if the phrase “there can be only one” applies … you are not open source.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Jody</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 6:38 PM Jody Garnett <<a href="mailto:jody.garnett@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">jody.garnett@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">There is a useful definition of a framework (quite technical) here <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework" target="_blank" class="">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework</a></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">Software frameworks have these distinguishing features that separate them from libraries or normal user applications: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework" target="_blank" class="">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework</a><ul class=""><li class="">inversion of control - In a framework, unlike in libraries or normal user applications, the overall program's flow of control is not dictated by the caller, but by the framework.[1]</li></ul><ul class=""><li class="">default behavior - A framework has a default behavior. This default behavior must actually be some useful behavior and not a series of no-ops.</li></ul><ul class=""><li class="">extensibility - A framework can be extended by the user usually by selective overriding or specialized by user code providing specific functionality.</li></ul><ul class=""><li class="">non-modifiable framework code - The framework code, in general, is not allowed to be modified. Users can extend the framework, but not modify its code.</li></ul></blockquote><div class="">While all of that is technically true it is perhaps a bit too detailed for our purpose.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The core distinction is earlier in the thread:</div><div class="">- Does your open source code support a single website? Or is is setup for use by others?</div><div class="">- Are you building a community around services? This is a user community ...</div><div class="">- Are you building a community around software? This is still a user community ...</div><div class="">- Are you building a community around software where the software source code is available to look at? This is still a user community ... looking at you Elasticsearch</div><div class="">- Are you building a community around software with shared responsibility and risk (enabled by a license to view *and change* source code)? This is a free or open-source community (depending on which license chosen by the group)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">--<br class="">Jody Garnett<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 18:32, Bruce Bannerman <<a href="mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">bruce.bannerman.osgeo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Jody,</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">I don’t expect anything constructive from the AGM. People won’t have time to reflect.</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">…now what is a ‘Framework’?</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">I suggest that we define what we support and take it from there. We can always adjust, if required.</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">Kind regards,</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">Bruce</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 4 Sep 2021, at 05:27, Jody Garnett <<a href="mailto:jody.garnett@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">jody.garnett@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Thanks Bruce,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I did not get anything useful from the board; perhaps it is a subject for the AGM.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For now the way forward seems to be to recast the platform as a framework and ensure the resulting software stack and be picked up and run independently (with a quickstart or similar).</div><div class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">--</div><div class="">Jody Garnett</div></div></div></div></div></div><br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 21:57, Bruce Bannerman <<a href="mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">bruce.bannerman.osgeo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space" class="">Thanks Jody,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Personally:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><ul class=""><li class="">I don’t mind a situation where an open source project attempts to develop and maintain software that is intended to integrate a number of software components into a working product which could perhaps be called a platform.</li></ul><div class=""><br class=""></div><ul class=""><li class="">I can see many situations where the ‘platform’ might deploy both components and the platform’s specific customisations concurrently.</li></ul><div class=""><br class=""></div><ul class=""><li class="">However, I would not support a situation where that product (or platform) can only be implemented once. I’d prefer that it can be implemented many times by different organisations.</li></ul><div class=""><br class=""></div><ul class=""><li class="">While such a ‘platform’ project would look after its own "integration related software", I’d see that the individual components would be subject to their own open source project community’s governance practices.</li></ul><div class=""><br class=""></div><ul class=""><li class="">This could get quite messy, when the integration related software is actually a customisation of an existing software component with its own open source community already in existence. This would require careful and close collaboration between both communities…</li></ul><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That will do for now, let’s see what others think.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Kind regards,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Bruce</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 15 Jul 2021, at 01:21, Jody Garnett <<a href="mailto:jody.garnett@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">jody.garnett@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">It is indeed overloaded, and no I cannot clarify as the applicants that are coming in are slightly different from each other.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Turn-key portals such as <a href="https://www.osgeo.org/choose-a-project/information-technology/portal/" target="_blank" class="">https://www.osgeo.org/choose-a-project/information-technology/portal/</a> these showcase a range of projects. Some like geomoose are presented as frameworks, others like GC2/Vidi are presented as a platform.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I would be cautious about an open source project that just supports a single website (like <a href="http://github.com/mapstory" target="_blank" class="">http://github.com/mapstory</a>), but perhaps that is my own bias? There is an advantage to users of a platform being able to review the code responsible for the service they are using. But this represents new ground for OSGeo, hence the discussion.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I also brought this discussion to the osgeo board list; so we do not need to decide on our own.</div><div class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">--</div><div class="">Jody Garnett</div></div></div></div></div></div><br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 18:56, Bruce Bannerman <<a href="mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">bruce.bannerman.osgeo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">Hi Jody,<br class="">
<br class="">
The concept of a platform is quite overloaded and means different things to different people.<br class="">
<br class="">
Can you please clarify what you mean by ‘platform’?<br class="">
<br class="">
Kind regards,<br class="">
<br class="">
Bruce<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
> On 12 Jul 2021, at 18:30, Jody Garnett <<a href="mailto:jody.garnett@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">jody.garnett@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class="">
> <br class="">
> Discussion topic for incubation committee:<br class="">
> <br class="">
> We are getting applications from platforms seeking to join OSGeo.<br class="">
> <br class="">
> What do you think?<br class="">
> --<br class="">
> Jody Garnett<br class="">
> _______________________________________________<br class="">
> Incubator mailing list<br class="">
> <a href="mailto:Incubator@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank" class="">Incubator@lists.osgeo.org</a><br class="">
> <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator</a><br class="">
<br class="">
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>-- <br class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">--</div><div class="">Jody Garnett</div></div></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>