[Board] Definition of "IP" and "Intellectual Poverty"

[Peter Batty]

I'm with Jody on this one, I don't think we should be trying to deny that
there is such a thing as intellectual property. A GPL-like license is one
way of protecting your intellectual property (ensuring it stays open) - if
you don't believe there is such a thing as intellectual property then a GPL
license makes no sense (why should you be able to impose constraints on
what someone does with your code?). Companies that I have worked with use
the term in contexts such as doing an audit of open source software they
are using to ensure they are conforming to the license terms for each piece
of software. This can be quite complex. I think this is one context in
which Eclipse uses the term.

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>wrote:

> + 1 Frank., it is pertinent for OSGeo.
> 'Intellectual Property' and 'Open Source Software' do not go together.
> It is important that we discuss these issues once in a while, for clarity
> of stand,
> or is there a wiki link existing??
> Ravi Kumar
>
> I must be so out of touch on this one - open source is a part of the
> intellectual property conversation. They deliberately go together; indeed
> it is what the license part of open source is about.
>
> As a group "open source" provides a range of licenses providing guidance
> around the use (and reuse) of code. These licenses facilitate (i.e. define
> terms) under which we can reuse / recycle code with the permissions of the
> authors (i.e. copyright holders). Since OSGeo is an open source community
> we often have direct contact with these authors; in a few cases they have
> signed over copyright to a neutral organisation … such as the foundation of
> itself.
>
> Now it would be nice if software worked like the fashion industry and did
> not make use of copyright protection. Since our industry does make use of
> these provisions - it is great that open source allows us an "out".
>
> The specific nature of the open source license used by a project lets you
> know what has been negotiated with the authors with respect to IP.
> Depending the different aspects of the IP spectrum you agree with you may
> react strongly (or indifferently) to the options available. You can even
> use this as a measure of what you care about (either from the case of
> trying to protect; or from the case of trying to access).
>
> For myself I try protect the freedom of developers to get the job done.
>
> Open source is one of my best tools to protect this freedom.
>
> Another valuable tool is the different foundations. You can tell a lot
> from the a foundation and its members by what makes their hit list when
> accepting new projects. OSGeo is very much about transparency; but not so
> much on the protecting developers from IP issues. Eclipse foundation
> suffers on transparency a bit; but is very responsive to protecting
> developers from IP issues.
>
> Aside: The uDig community is looking at joining the Eclipse "location
> working group". It is a good fit of technology, open source spatial
> outreach, and access to a pool of developers we do not normally interact
> with. Perhaps when this process is done (or even started) we can provide
> further feedback on the experience.
>
> Jody
>
> _______________________________________________
> Board mailing list
> Board at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/board/attachments/20120525/3452bff3/attachment.htm>