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

[Daniel Brookshier]

Sorry, hit the button too fast.

The board list is open. However, posting is another matter.

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


>
>
> 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/20060313/2e8ab157/attachment.htm>