OSGeo status regarding implementation of standards

[Paul Ramsey]

Legal implications?

Firstly, the language about numbering and locking is just practical  
stuff like software: if a numbered, non-changing baseline is not  
established, it is not possible to build things on top of it.  Ask  
FrankW if he would recommend people build products against the CVS  
version of GDAL.

This is an open source project, the source just happens to be words  
in this case, but like any software library people will reference it  
and build other software on top of it.

I suppose if you want to drive this activity out, we can re-formulate  
it at EOGEO.  Frankly, all that is needed is a neutral place for  
people to collaborate and enough industry momentum and buy-in to make  
it relevant.  If OGC is jealous that you've managed that in under a  
year, well, too bad. :)

P

On 3-Nov-06, at 8:00 AM, Arnulf Christl wrote:

> Hi,
> I have been asked by the OGC whether OSGeo wants to become an  
> active standardization body. I said that OSGeo has set a high  
> affinity for standards in its charter but that it is currently not  
> actively developing them. Reading the page "Tile Map Service  
> Specification" speaks a different language though:
> From: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Tile_Map_Service_Specification
> This specification is currently in active revision, edits are  
> accepted from any user at any time. Please join the mailing list  
> http://lists.eogeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tiling to discuss your  
> ideas before applying them to the draft. The specification will  
> first move from active revision to final review and then finally to  
> numbered specification, at which point it will be locked.
> Personally I am all in favor of a fast, easy, and truly open  
> process that considers technical aspects and goes about it  
> pragmatically. But we do not have an official statement regarding  
> this. As long as we have not considered this we should be careful  
> proclaiming the above 'standard' in the way we do because of all  
> kings of legal implications.
>
> Any opinions?
>
> Best regards, Arnulf.