[OSGeo-Standards] OGC XML schemas and FOSS4G softwaredistribution

[Jody Garnett]

I think we better ask around for a contact at Debian (perhaps the person
who reviewed pycsw can be approached?). Failing that we could review what
the w3c has written which is apparently successful.
--
Jody

--
Jody Garnett

On 9 February 2015 at 11:45, Carl Reed <creed at opengeospatial.org> wrote:

>   Jody -
>
> Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. I will be chairing a
> session at the Barcelona TC meetings to discuss some proposed changes to
> the OGC Policies and Procedures. I would like to add this issue to the
> agenda. Any ideas about possible solutions would be most welcome. Quite
> honestly, in all my years at the OGC, I never read this section of the OGC
> IPR FAQ. You are quite correct in your assessment – Clear as mud!
>
> Cheers
>
> Carl
>
>
>  *From:* Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 08, 2015 6:14 PM
> *To:* Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com>
> *Cc:* standards at lists.osgeo.org
> *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo-Standards] OGC XML schemas and FOSS4G
> softwaredistribution
>
>  Agreed, the restriction comes out of trying to keep these things unique
> (hence the request as a courtesy).
>
> I still think this is an interesting case where OSGeo and OGC could work
> out a compromise for the benefit of all. It is within the mandate of OSGeo,
> and help OGC standards reach an extended audience.
> --
> Jody
>
>    --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 7 February 2015 at 07:01, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > It looks like the technical limitation (do not use the same namespace)
>> is
>> > getting in the way of software terms. Perhaps it could be relaxed to "do
>> > not publish under the same namespace" (allowing its use in pycsw for
>> > internal validation).
>>
>> I suspect Debian's issue is about following the DFSG, and having the
>> right to make changes, rather than that they actually *want* to make
>> changes now.   I maintain some packages in pkgsrc (multi-OS packaging
>> system), and there we require non-Free licenses to be identified, which
>> prevents building of the package by default.  But often Debian is in the
>> lead for identifying these sorts of issues.
>>
>> Also, if you said "permission granted under copyright law, but we ask as
>> a courtesy that you not do X", that's probably ok with Debian (I can't
>> speak for them, but it would not be an issue in pkgsrc).
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150213/1d9f5819/attachment.html>