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

Mon Mar 13 10:52:13 PST 2006

I say open until we start getting spammed, then change it to moderated. 
  Then we can cc conversations with the board, and allow people to ask 
the board questions.  We don't want all kinds of outside people 
discussing with us on the board list, but I think we can enforce that 
with social norms, by saying the board list is the place where the board 
discusses things.

Daniel Brookshier wrote:
> 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
>>
>>

-- 
Chris Holmes
The Open Planning Project
thoughts at: http://cholmes.wordpress.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cholmes.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 269 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20060313/6dc3961c/attachment.vcf>