[Board] Re: Statement of OSGeo Legal Support

[Frank Warmerdam]

Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>   Instead that as situations come up the
>> board would consider them on a case by case basis and get involved or not
>> as is appropriate and possible. 
> This statement is a bit weak. It is ok to consider case by case, but we 
> should set down high level guidelines, or principles. Some like Google's 
> "Do no evil".
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing lots, but something like the following might be a 
> starting point:
> 
> OSGeo believes in:
> * Providing quality Open Source Software for our users.
> * Enabling vibrant, engaging, safe communities for our developers.
> * Helping our projects improve
 >
> OSGeo does this by:
> * Ensuring our projects follow good development and management processes.
> * Providing legal advice to projects to support project processes.
> * Speaking on behalf of projects on legal matters. Eg. Advising a 
> copyrite violator. (Better words required here)
> * Providing infrastructure
> * Providing branding, promotion and networking opportunities.

Cameron,

While the above are true, most of them are not particularly
germaine to the topic of legal support and I am hesitant to
allow a statement on legal support become a definition of the
whole mission and goals of OSGeo.

> As yet, OSGeo is not resourced to provide:
> * Legal representation on behalf of projects or members of projects.
> * ...

I don't really agree with that.  We have *limited* resources to
provide legal representation for our projects (and to some extent
by extension to members).

> As I gain a greater understanding of the issues, this is sounding like a 
> good idea. The FSF is set up specifically to address Open Source legal 
> issues. 

My understanding is that the FSF was set up to support development
of the GNU Project and to promote the ideals of free software in
general.  Legal issues are one aspect of that.

 > Lets make use of it.
> There is a good chance we could broker a teaming arrangement with FSF of 
> sorts. Maybe we can set up an OSGeo division of FSF, sort of like a 
> satellite office.

I am dubious that the FSF would accept an organization with "Open Source"
in it's title as a "division" of FSF.  The chances of my agreeing for
OSGeo and the GDAL project to be subject to the direction of Richard
Stallman are also very small.  I claim that the FSF takes an approach to
free software that is significantly less "inclusive" than OSGeo attempts
to take and I am dubious that we could work together at more than a
tactical level.

That said, it is not implausible that particular OSGeo projects could also
seek affiliation with the FSF.

>> I promised to draft a statement and to put it out where all the board can
>> consider it before we declare it policy.  My suggested statement is:
>>
>> """
>> OSGeo intends to be a legal representative of it's projects, and
>> to act legally on their behalf as appropriate.  However, OSGeo
>> reserves the right, at board discretion, to decide what legal
>> resources to allocate and to what particular issues to allocate them.

Cameron writes:
> I don't think this line is good enough as it doesn't state what is in, 
> and what is out of the arrangement.

"Legal Resources" are in, and allocation is at the discretion of
the board.  What do you mean by in and out?

>>
>> If an OSGeo project, or developer is sued, or legally threatened,
>> on a matter related to an OSGeo project they may seek OSGeo legal
>> support.  OSGeo's board will decide what resources, if any, to provide
>> to support the project or developer.
> Ok, if linked to guidelines the board should use. Guidelines should be 
> something like:
> OSGeo are likely to provide legal advice and will endenvour to avoid 
> taking matters to court.

Well, as soon as we try to write down guidelines it is harder to
reach consensus.  I don't think the suggested guidelines.  If I were
going to actually write guidelines I'd want them to be more in depth
and soon we would have trouble having consensus on them.

> Lastly,
> Thankyou Frank and others for dedicating so much time to this. I see it 
> as dirty but essential work.

Thanks.  And I appreciate your continued effort on this discussion.  It is
a great deal more constructive than just throwing up a suggestion and
then wondering why others didn't run with it.

I shall now endevour to step back from this discussion for a couple days
to give other board members a chance to speak.

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 OSGeo, http://osgeo.org