<html><body><div dir="ltr">
Greg:</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Keep in mind that this entire foundation is an outreach and advocacy activity - we are here to help :)</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">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.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">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).</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">(So need to change incubation process here)</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">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. </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">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.</div><div dir="ltr"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div>Jody Garnett</div></div></div></div></div></div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Jul 31, 2023 at 11:39:51 AM, Greg Troxel <<a href="mailto:gdt@lexort.com">gdt@lexort.com</a>> wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" type="cite">
<div>
<div>
Jody Garnett <<a href="mailto:jody.garnett@gmail.com">jody.garnett@gmail.com</a>> writes:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"> This is an example where the "osgeo community" program is not really well<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> thought out by the OSGeo board.<br></blockquote><br>:-)<br><br>I would suggest that the Board amend the guidelines to require as a<br>condition of acceptance into incubation and at all times thereafter that<br>the project clearly document licensing and be in good standing with<br>respect to having a license regime that meets the Open Source Definition<br>(or the Free Software Definition; saying either would be fine) and that<br>the project's activities comply with the license obligations from<br>third-party code.<br><br>I view this as basic and implicit, but it is a fair point that it should<br>be adopted formally.<br><br><blockquote type="cite"> We have no mechanism to work through any difficult topics with potential<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> applicants. With the full "osgeo project" incubation process there is a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> mentor assigned to each project team which can act as a point of contact to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> work through difficult issues that are not suitable for public discussion.<br></blockquote><br>I can certainly believe some issues are like that. But I think that the<br>heart of this is open source, and that means license compliance as a<br>non-negotiable core value.<br><br><blockquote type="cite"> And indeed our osgeo community struggles with the idea that some topics are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> not suitable for public discussion 🙂<br></blockquote><br>I can believe that there are some such topics, but I think basic<br>questions of licensing that I have been raising should be discussed<br>publically when there is an application for any kind of osgeo status on<br>the table -- an inherently public act. (Of course, quite a long time<br>has passed, and if had been resolved privately and we arrived at a good<br>state, that would have been ok -- but we aren't there.)<br><br>I am hoping that the reality is actually ok, but I find it concerning<br>that there has been no explanation at all to what I think is a<br>reasonable and straightforward question.<br><br>I would say it is entirely fine to withdraw the application, work<br>through the issues perhaps privately, and then when there is public<br>documentation about all the licensing issues, restart it.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></body></html>