[OSGeo-Board] Bylaws posted

[Markus Neteler]

On 2/23/06, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Arnulf Christl (CCGIS) wrote:
> > Spatial data is somewhat special in this respect. I talked to Jimmy
> Wales
> > Richard Stallman they think GNU FDL is good. Ward Cunningham is into CC,
> > and says its cool for spatial data too obviously.
> >
> > I am not sure though. Daniel Faivre (camptocamp) is very actively
> > promoting a license specially designed to fit spatial data backed by an
> > active Canadian group, they call it PGL. I believe Jo has something up
> the
> > sleeve too and OSM is also thinking in this line. All of them are highly
> > interested in the OSGeo (well, dunno about OSM, they are sort of sleepy)
> > and it might happen that the Foundation itself will be the body creating
> > this special license. In the end this is one of the things that we came
> > together to do here. What I want to say is that we do not have to choose
> > from different licenses but maybe set out to create one.
>
> Arnulf / Markus,
>
> At one point I proposed that the requirement our software projects use
> OSI approved licenses be written into the bylaws with the intent that it
> would not be easy for a board to contemplate changing any "copyright
> assigned"
> software to a non-OSI license.  That is, as a sort of limitation on the
> board
> and the foundation.



Frank,

I was refering to data etc, not to software. I am fine with our statement
according
to software (OSI approved licenses).

Since we haven't worked out details of what license(s) are necessary best
> for various kinds of "content" or spatial data, I would suggest we not try
> to
> address this in the bylaws at this time.  As has been done, it is useful
> to
> make clear in the bylaws that the OSI approval requirement is for
> software.


(sure; but I was talking data :-)

Certainly, I would like to see discussion about appropriate licenses for
> web/educational/promotional materials and spatial data.  But there is not
> yet much clarity on the topic.


Agreed. There no widely accepted spatial data license yet. I just wanted to
avoid that things are mixed with software licenses which won't work.
For written texts and promotional material the CC licenses seem to work
well, so there is less of a problem.

My issue was only to not limit the bylaws to only talk about software which
seems to be the case. No need to hard-code and license there, just be open
to not *exclude* any future license which may be applicable.

Markus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20060226/3d74658f/attachment.htm>