[Board] Re: Statement of OSGeo Legal Support

[Arnulf Christl]

Paul Ramsey wrote:
> 
> 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.

Hey Paul,
actually it does - in the second sentence of the first paragraph:

"The foundation provides financial, organizational and legal support to the broader open source geospatial community."

But it never specifies what "legal support". I added quotes, lets find out what we mean by "legal support". Some time ago I proposed to change the order into "organizational, legal and financial" which  reflects what we are good at better. The CR was pre-Trac and got lost somewhere in ether. 

It also says:

"It also serves as an independent legal entity to which community members can contribute code, funding and other resources, secure in the knowledge that their contributions will be maintained for public benefit." 

This refers to our organizational capabilities, which is the most important kind of support that we currently give to projects and members. To be able to do this with corporate backing we have founded a legal entity - the Foundation. From my perspective this is the "legal support" that OSGeo currently gives. The OSGeo community can help projects to find the best suited Open Source license and gibve advice on how to organize governance, attribute Copyright (yes, we do that too, even if it is scary and slow moving), operate a PSC, etc. All of this is not "done" by "The Board" but probably by people in the Incubation committee. Which may be a reason why there are also a lot of officers in that committee. This is obviously very remote to the kind of "legal support" that others suggested and that involves protecting developers in lawsuits or prosecuting GPL offenders. That is not on my agenda until it is required and I support the path proposed by FrankW to first educate people, t
hen educate them again, then scold them publicly and only then set them on fire. 

Best regards, 
Arnulf. 

PS:
Cameron, thanks for your continued support on this topic. 

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