<div dir="ltr">Added a take to the <a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_XML_Schemas_and_FOSS4G_Software_Distribution">wiki page</a>. Would love to have feedback from from Bas to see if the result would get past the Debian guidelines.<div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div><i>Schemas (and DTDs) are frequently part of our specifications and seemingly fall under the</i></div></div><div><div><i>document copyright terms.</i></div></div><div><div><i><br></i></div></div><div><div><i>Applications may use the schema/DTD for under the software license. We ask that care be taken</i></div></div><div><div><i>when making a derivative or modified schema/DTD to preserve interoperability.</i></div></div><div><div><i><br></i></div></div><div><div><i>As an example a schema/DTD used for internal validation may be modified to validate additional</i></div></div><div><div><i>optional vendor options without affecting interoperability. This has no impact on interoperability</i></div></div><div><div><i>between applications and the resulting schema/DTD remains embedded in the application.</i></div></div><div><div><i><br></i></div></div><div><div><i>If publishing a modified schema/DTD it no longer qualifies as an OGC schema/DTD and we ask</i></div></div><div><div><i>that a unique formal namespace or public identifier be used to prevent application confusion.</i></div></div><div><div><i>This request is based on the restrictions of XML technology rather than a license restriction.</i></div></div><div><div><i><br></i></div></div><div><div><i>When using the software terms you are obligated to include/retain the OGC copyright notice. We</i></div></div><div><div><i>further appreciate a couple sentences regarding who made the modifications, when, and what</i></div></div><div><div><i>changes were made in the original DTD -- a common software documentation practice.</i></div></div></blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>I have sympathy with the OGC here as there is a technical restrictions in play here, rather than just a license restrictions. XML parsers having obtained a schema once (from any source) are not obliged to download it again from an application (which may of performed modifications).</div><div>--</div><div>Jody<br><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>--</div><div>Jody Garnett</div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On 16 February 2015 at 12:14, Tom Kralidis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tomkralidis@gmail.com" target="_blank">tomkralidis@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Hi all: Cameron suggested we brainstorm ideas to put forth for Carl et. al.<br>
<br>
I've bootstrapped <a href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_XML_Schemas_and_FOSS4G_Software_Distribution" target="_blank">http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/<u></u>OGC_XML_Schemas_and_FOSS4G_<u></u>Software_Distribution</a><br>
for folks to augment. The next TC is 09 - 13 March 2015, so it would be good<br>
to have something by then, which (as nhv states) would need to be passed through the OSGeo Board?<br>
<br>
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:10:31 +0100<br>
From: Sebastiaan Couwenberg <<a href="mailto:sebastic@xs4all.nl" target="_blank">sebastic@xs4all.nl</a>><br>
To: Carl Reed <<a href="mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org" target="_blank">creed@opengeospatial.org</a>><br>
Cc: Debian GIS Project <<a href="mailto:debian-gis@lists.debian.org" target="_blank">debian-gis@lists.debian.org</a>>,<span class=""><br>
<a href="mailto:standards@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">standards@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] OGC XML schemas and FOSS4G softwaredistribution<br>
<br></span><div><div class="h5">
Hi Carl and others,<br>
<br>
Thanks to Tom Kralidis for bringing this thread to my attention. I'm<br>
bringing the Debian GIS team into the loop too.<br>
<br>
On 02/13/2015 06:12 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I think we better ask around for a contact at Debian (perhaps the person<br>
who reviewed pycsw can be approached?). Failing that we could review what<br>
the w3c has written which is apparently successful.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 9 February 2015 at 11:45, Carl Reed <<a href="mailto:creed@opengeospatial.org" target="_blank">creed@opengeospatial.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. I will be chairing a<br>
session at the Barcelona TC meetings to discuss some proposed changes to<br>
the OGC Policies and Procedures. I would like to add this issue to the<br>
agenda. Any ideas about possible solutions would be most welcome. Quite<br>
honestly, in all my years at the OGC, I never read this section of the OGC<br>
IPR FAQ. You are quite correct in your assessment – Clear as mud!<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 7 February 2015 at 07:01, Greg Troxel <<a href="mailto:gdt@ir.bbn.com" target="_blank">gdt@ir.bbn.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Jody Garnett <<a href="mailto:jody.garnett@gmail.com" target="_blank">jody.garnett@gmail.com</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
It looks like the technical limitation (do not use the same namespace)<br>
</blockquote>
is<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
getting in the way of software terms. Perhaps it could be relaxed to "do<br>
not publish under the same namespace" (allowing its use in pycsw for<br>
internal validation).<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I suspect Debian's issue is about following the DFSG, and having the<br>
right to make changes, rather than that they actually *want* to make<br>
changes now. I maintain some packages in pkgsrc (multi-OS packaging<br>
system), and there we require non-Free licenses to be identified, which<br>
prevents building of the package by default. But often Debian is in the<br>
lead for identifying these sorts of issues.<br>
<br>
Also, if you said "permission granted under copyright law, but we ask as<br>
a courtesy that you not do X", that's probably ok with Debian (I can't<br>
speak for them, but it would not be an issue in pkgsrc).<br>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<br>
The issue with the OGC Document & Software Notice terms in Debian are<br>
indeed their non-compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and<br>
specifically the right to modifications. To quote the relevant clauses<br>
of the DFSG:<br>
<br>
"<br>
3. Derived Works<br>
<br>
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must<br>
allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of<br>
the original software.<br>
<br>
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code<br>
<br>
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in<br>
modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch<br>
files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program<br>
at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of<br>
software built from modified source code. The license may require<br>
derived works to carry a different name or version number from the<br>
original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group<br>
encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary,<br>
from being modified.)<br>
"<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines" target="_blank">https://www.debian.org/social_<u></u>contract#guidelines</a><br>
<br>
The problematic OGC license terms were first discussed with the Debian<br>
FTP master after they rejected the upload of TinyOWS. The tinyows<br>
packages was already included in UbuntuGIS and OSGeo-Live for some time,<br>
but it never found its way into Debian.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2014-January/017300.html" target="_blank">http://lists.alioth.debian.<u></u>org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/<u></u>2014-January/017300.html</a><br>
<br>
I've written to <a href="mailto:site-policy@opengeospatial.org" target="_blank">site-policy@opengeospatial.org</a> to discuss this issue,<br>
but I never received a response. Please refer to the debian-gis list<br>
archive for the message in question.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://lists.debian.org/debian-gis/2014/01/msg00032.html" target="_blank">https://lists.debian.org/<u></u>debian-gis/2014/01/msg00032.<u></u>html</a><br>
<br>
One way to address this issue is to change the DFSG, adding another<br>
compromise for standards related files. But changing the DFSG requires a<br>
General Resolution with a 3:1 majority to be accepted, because changing<br>
a Foundation Documents (Social Contract & DFSG) is not taken lightly in<br>
the Debian project.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-4" target="_blank">https://www.debian.org/devel/<u></u>constitution#item-4</a><br>
<br>
Debian doesn't include RFCs for similar reasons to those with the OGC<br>
notice terms. The new IETFS copyright notice explicitly forbids<br>
modifications not approved via the standards process.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments" target="_blank">https://wiki.debian.org/<u></u>NonFreeIETFDocuments</a><br>
<a href="https://bugs.debian.org/199810" target="_blank">https://bugs.debian.org/199810</a><br>
<br>
To deal with the problematic OGC notices the problematic files are<br>
excluded from the Debian package where possible. The CITE tests included<br>
in TinyOWS & PostGIS are removed for their Debian packages. The XSD<br>
schemas are not so easily stripped from the packages because they are<br>
more essential to the operation of the programs unlike their testsuites.<br>
<br>
Most CITE tests ship with the OGC Document Notice included, which makes<br>
sense for their role in assuring standards compliance, but their role in<br>
software would make the more permissive Software Notice more appropriate.<br>
<br>
Both the OGC Document Notice and the OGC Software Notice are problematic<br>
with respect to the DFSG. The first paragraph of the Software Notice<br>
contains:<br>
<br>
"<br>
By obtaining, using and/or copying this work, you (the licensee)<br>
agree that you have read, understood, and will comply with the<br>
following terms and conditions.<br>
"<br>
<br>
This is not possible in the Debian package management, prompting to<br>
accept license terms is not possible before obtaining the work. The<br>
package first needs to be downloaded from the repository (obtained)<br>
before the debconf prompt can be used to allow the user to accept or<br>
reject the terms and conditions.<br>
<br>
Luckily this was not problematic enough to also reject TinyOWS from the<br>
non-free repository, but not having it in the main repo is a pain<br>
(non-free is not autobuilt by default for instance).<br>
<br>
Please refer to the email by Thorsten Alteholz in the thread he spawned<br>
with the rejection of the Debian package for TinyOWS.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2014-January/017321.html" target="_blank">http://lists.alioth.debian.<u></u>org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/<u></u>2014-January/017321.html</a><br>
<br>
In that message Thorsten also requests an clear statement from OGC about<br>
which terms apply to CITE tests.<br>
<br>
It would be very helpful if OGC could join the discussion with the<br>
Debian FTP masters to clearify their position.<br>
<br>
Because a change in the Debian projects strict adherence to the DFSG is<br>
not expected in the short term, it would also be very helpful if the<br>
terms for OGC standards works could be changed to be more permissive<br>
with modifications. This would greatly ease work required to include<br>
OSGeo software with OGC works in Linux distributions, not only Debian.<br>
Debian is just one of the strictest in upholding the principals of Free<br>
Software, only the FSF endorsed distributions are even stricter.<br>
<br>
Kind Regards,<br>
<br>
Bas<br>
<br>
-- <br>
GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1<br>
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Standards mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Standards@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Standards@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/standards</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
Standards mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Standards@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Standards@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/standards</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>