[Board] Re: Statement of OSGeo Legal Support

Paul Ramsey pramsey at refractions.net
Tue Nov 6 11:56:04 PST 2007 

I think Cameron is still looking for more than many / most of us are  
willing to provide.  I do not see a lot of utility in investigating  
the subset of future issues we can imagine (ignoring, obviously, the  
ones we cannot conceive of) when our actions at the time of decision  
are going to be largely constrained by our known resource limits  
anyways.

Would a non-statement statement clarify things at all? Frank has  
already provided one. OSGeo will "do the best it can" to both protect  
the licensing of projects (GPL defense) and the interests of  
contributors (defense against suits) deciding on what resources to  
provide and actions to take on a case-by-case basis.

OSGeo has already done as much as it can within the limits of project  
flexibility (everyone is as unique as perfect snowflake) to provide  
defense against suits, by mandating the provenance review and the  
contribution guidelines as part of incubation.

I guess being a "Foundation" means there is a certain conflation of  
purpose with other open source foundations, like OSI, FSF, Apache,  
who have been largely established for legal purposes (Apache was  
established at the insistence of IBM lawyers, after all).  Legal  
stuff doesn't even show up in the main foundation description page:  
http://www.osgeo.org/content/foundation/about.html

P.

On 5-Nov-07, at 3:39 PM, Dave McIlhagga wrote:

> That's fair -- and btw, like everyone else, I appreciate the  
> efforts to bring this to all of our attention. These are important  
> issues to be discussing, and more importantly to get resolution on.
>
> Dave
>

> On 5-Nov-07, at 5:20 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>
>> Dave,
>> I acknowledge and appreciate the difficulty of guessing all the  
>> legal possibilities we may face in the future. But if OSGeo  
>> doesn't face it, OSGeo moves the risk management down to the  
>> projects.
>>
>> This is not bad, so long as we are clear about OSGeo's position.   
>> From my reading, it seems that OSGeo is not resourced to provide  
>> anything but elementary legal support to projects, due to  
>> complexity of licenses and minimal access to legal resources. So  
>> I'm hoping that OSGeo can make such a statement.
>> Going back to my previous request:
>> * Define the options of what can be supported and implementation  
>> of these options. (Luis Villa + legal rep)
>> * Board votes on options
>> * Board makes statement (on webpage)
>> * Projects like geotools make qualified licensing decisions
>>
>> Dave McIlhagga wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Cameron Shorter
>> Geospatial Systems Architect
>> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
>> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
>>
>> Think Globally, Fix Locally
>> Commercial Support for Geospatial Open Source Software
>> http://www.lisasoft.com/LISAsoft/SupportedProducts.html
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board

More information about the Board mailing list