[Board] Re: Statement of OSGeo Legal Support

[Dave McIlhagga]

As Frank has mentioned previously - the board has been fairly quiet  
on this issue, but I think the reason is that it is a tricky issue to  
both get ones head around, and because no one is a lawyer ... I for  
one feel like I'm wading into territory I don't know a lot about.

Having said that - I will throw out a couple of thoughts, which folks  
can take or leave.


1. Background / History

The foundation was setup as a home for high quality OSGeo projects of  
many types, forms and histories. From brand new web mapping projects  
(MapGuide, OpenLayers) to the grand-daddy of GIS -- GRASS. Projects  
with strong academic and corporate grass roots, to one man projects  
like GDAL/OGR which are used in almost every proprietary geospatial  
product on the planet.

They also cover the spectrum of OSI (or near OSI licenses).


2. How do we handle this diversity?

This is a very unique challenge quite different then say the FSF or  
Apache Foundation where common philosophy permeates the  
organizations, and common licenses to go with them.

With GeoSpatial being the only common link -- it makes it extremely  
difficult to figure out what a consistent policy should be when it  
comes to contributions agreements, legal protection, etc.. As a  
consequence, we've chosen a route of allowing each project a great  
deal of autonomy in determining it's course, while setting up a  
minimal amount of consistency in terms of:

a) Project Steering Committee / Management
b) Code review and due diligence
c) Evidence of a Healthy Functioning Project

Because of this minimalist approach -- it becomes extremely difficult  
to justify spending a great deal of resources/energy towards a single  
project as a foundation -- such as the foundation funding legal  
support for a particular project. The reason is a combination of  
fairness, and appropriateness for the board imposing substantial  
policy. What's appropriate for one project may be completely  
inappropriate for another.


My sense is that the Board and OSGeo needs to spend it's time and  
resources dedicated to issues that are OSGeo-wide, and encouraging  
individual projects to take responsibility for their respective  
projects. It's a tough line to know what's on one side or the other -  
which is why the board needs a great deal of latitude to deal with  
situations on a case by case basis.


I'm not sure how this helps the particular situation with GeoTools -  
but I hope it shows why a clear cut statement of legal support for  
projects is tricky.


Dave



On 3-Nov-07, at 4:38 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board