[OSGeo-Board] [Fwd: Re: GPSD and OSGEO]

[Daniel Brookshier]

You have three options:
Discuss - closed to outside posters
moderated - open only to allowed posters
unmoderated - open to all posts

Daniel Brookshier
Community Manager
Office: 972-422-5261
Cell: 214-207-6614


On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

>
> Folks,
>
> I think outside email to board is still blocked.  In case that is  
> true,
> I am forwarding this.
>
> I would like us to rethink having board at board.osgeo.org only allow us
> to send email.
>
> Best regards,
> -- 
> --------------------------------------- 
> +--------------------------------------
> I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,  
> warmerdam at pobox.com
> light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGF, http:// 
> osgeo.org
>
>
> From: "Eric S. Raymond" <esr at thyrsus.com>
> Date: March 13, 2006 10:34:04 AM CST
> To: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com>
> Cc: esr at snark.thyrsus.com, board at board.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: GPSD and OSGEO
> Reply-To: esr at thyrsus.com
>
>
> Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com>:
>> We have eight official projects that we accepted as foundation  
>> projects
>> when we launched and we anticipate it will be several more months  
>> before
>> we have completed the legal, organizational and technical process of
>> integrating them into the foundation.  Till that is complete or  
>> nearly
>> complete we aren't anticipating considering any additional projects.
>
> OK.  We have no reason to be in a tearing hurry to affiliate, so this
> doesn't seem to me to be a problem.
>
>> However, we are interested in identifying key projects that fill gaps
>> in our "GIS stack".  I personally have had little direct interaction
>> with GPS applications and hadn't actually considered this in a recent
>> "stack review", but now that you bring it to my attention it seems
>> like an obvious thing we would like to have covered.
>
> I should think so, yes :-).
>
>> We haven't worked out all the details of what it means to be a  
>> foundation
>> project yet, but at the least it would mean verifying code  
>> provenance and
>> getting signed contributor agreements from committers.
>
> Having been through this with respect to some OSI business, I strongly
> recommend *against* this step.  The move by some projects to requiring
> contributor agreements is, is, in my opinion, a serious mistake; and
> I've been backed up in this by advice of OSI's counsel.
>
> When the law is as unsettled as it is now with respect to open-source
> software, judges' perceptions of community practice often shape how
> they will rule.  In fact, it is doctrine in contract law that judges
> are *required* to take observed community practices into account.
>
> As the law now reads, we can argue that contributing to an open-source
> project is an implicit quit-claim of whatever rights are required to
> issue under the project license, and almost certainly win.  Courts do
> not look kindly on poisoned gifts; there are precedents that help in
> common law.
>
> On the other hand, if major projects shift towards requiring
> contributor agreements, hostile parties could treat that as a
> concession that there is no such quit-claim.  This would mean instant
> peril for all projects that do *not* have contributor agreements.
>
> Furthermore, contributor agreements are a poor fit for our threat  
> model.
> The major IP liability risk for open source is not contributors suing
> projects, it's third parties suing over allegedly protected material
> in contributions.  Contributor agreements are no help there.
>
> I believe the best strategy for the community at large is to reject  
> the
> bureaucratic overhead of contributor agreements, and instead to argue,
> if it ever comes to a court test, that the act of contributing to a  
> project
> constitutes acceptance of the project license terms.
>
> Please take this evaluation seriously, as I have researched this
> question most thoroughly in connection with my OSI duties.
>
>>                                               We are also hoping
>> for some common infrastructure, and cooperative branding (web site  
>> look
>> etc), though how important that would be isn't clear.
>
> GPSD would be willing to cooperate with that.
>
>> I don't know too much about how standards are developed in the GPS  
>> world.
>
> It's kind of a mess. The most important GPS "standard", NMEA 0183,
> is vendor proprietary.
>
>> I don't know if, or how long it may take the board to make an  
>> official
>> response or suggest a relationship between GPSD and OSGeo as we  
>> have a lot
>> on our plate currently.  But I will keep this in mind, and I hope  
>> to be
>> back in contact with you and the GPSD team at some point.
>
> We'll look forward to hearing from you.
> -- 
> 		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: board-unsubscribe at board.osgeo.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: board-help at board.osgeo.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20060313/243fae90/attachment.htm>