[Board] slides for Eclipse discussions next week

[Michael P. Gerlek]

Arnulf wrote...

> Typo On slide 8:    Charter members    * currently 12<<6>>, grows every year

Fixed, thanks.

> In general I stress that we should not use the term "IP" and that if Eclipse does use 
> it (and their lawyers) we have different underlying principles. This should be cleared 
> out asap because it is a core issue. We should not drift off into lawyer lingo just 
> because lawyers think that way.

Sorry, not sure what you mean here. What do you mean by "IP", and what do you suggest using instead?

I am using the term "IP" to broadly refer to issues that concern both organizations like provenance of source code contributions, assurance of patent-free code, and use of copyright headers. In this "layman" parlance, I'm following the Wikipedia definition:

	"Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized under the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property rights include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions."


> Slide: 29    No need to move OSGeo projects under eclipse rules.

Agreed, I'd hope not. But if they have their own legal constraints or something that we would need to follow for an OSGeo project to be considered "Eclipse-safe", than I want to understand what those might be right up front, as stuff like that could easily kill a deal fast. I've changed the wording on the slide to reflect what I meant.

> 31    Eclipse/LWG already has the attention of the people we want to work with
> * IBM, Oracle
> * Open Street Map, Ushahidi
> * World Bank
>
> This is a funny mix. Can you explain how OSM is working more with Eclipse than with OSGeo? Are there people at IBM and Oracle we really want to especially work with and can only contact them through Eclipse? Or is it the money and clients we want to work with? Unclear to me what this means.

What I meant on this slide was that there are organizations on that have joined (or are considering joining) the Eclipse LWG already that OSGeo has ties to or would like to work with -- at many levels, admittedly. And we do already work with OSM, yes.

Regarding IBM and Oracle, these are two organizations that are, at a corporate level, engaged with Eclipse/LWG but not engaged with OSGeo. OSGeo *could* try to engage them directly, e.g. to help sponsor a project or event, but to do so would require a business development / marketing effort which [I claim] OSGeo hasn't shown to be capable of. By allying ourselves with Eclipse, they could provide that level of outside engagement instead of us.

I'll clarify that slide some.


Thanks for the feedback!

_mpg