[Board] Request to transfer domain deegree.org to OSGeo

[Jeff McKenna]

Hi Jens,

As deegree is an OSGeo project, we can of course transfer the 
deegree.org domain to OSGeo.  Actually OSGeo's Systems Architecture 
Committee (SAC) manages this, so I will ask them on the SAC mailing list 
now.  Jens would you mind joining the SAC list and following along with 
this discussion?  Subscribe at https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/sac

If there is anything else you need besides just the domain transfer 
please let us know.

-jeff




On 2015-10-14 7:50 AM, Jens Fitzke wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> _
>
> Dear Board members,
>
> In the mail cited below I described a problem we just had with deegree.org. In
> the meantime it was possible, with the help of a professional lawyer, to
> reject the prosecution. We removed everything from deegree.org which might
> lead to the misinterpretation that commercial services are advertised there,
> and we added an imprint, the latter as an interim solution to support the
> rejection of the complaint.
>
> As a long-term solution, as already pointed out below, I propose to transfer
> the deegree.org domain to OSGeo. By that it would also from a legal point of
> view be clear that it is a community domain, not a company domain. If that
> transfer is possible, also the imprint could either be removed or adjusted to
> the new situation.
>
> Such a procedure could also be a solution for other OSGeo project who might
> otherwise run into the same kind of trouble.
>
> The question to you is, if such a transfer is possible, and what has to be
> done to achieve it. Your feedback, please.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jens
>
>
>
>
> - -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> Betreff: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] OSGeo is becoming irrelevant. Here's why. Let's
> fix it.
> Datum: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:57:18 +0200
> Von: Jens Fitzke <fitzke at lat-lon.de>
> Kopie (CC): discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>
> Am 26.09.2015 um 17:20 schrieb Darrell Fuhriman:
>> This is a perfect example.
>>
>> All of those are great and wonderful things! The community does great and
>> wonderful things. That’ s not my point.
>>
>> My point is, those activities would happen even if the OSGeo Foundation
>> disappeared. I’m not questioning whether we have a large and vibrant
>> community, we do. And we still would.
>>
>> My local chapter existed before it was an OSGeo chapter, and we would keep
>> on having meetings and doing fun and exciting things even without the
>> OSGeo Foundation.
>
> Same is true for the German chapter. But nevertheless there is need for
> something more umbrella-like.
>
>> Put another way: The OSGeo Foundation needs the Open Source Geospatial
>> community, but does the Open Source Geospatial community need the OSGeo
>> Foundation? I don’t see that it does.
>
> Here's a case why the Open Source Geospatial community need the OSGeo
> Foundation: Our company is currently being legally prosecuted as the owner of
> the deegree.org domain. The claim is that on www.deegree.org there is a
> commercial offering, but at the same time the web site lacks an imprint (which
> is legally enforced in Germany for all commercial offerings). Besides the
> question if some links to companies who provide "professional support" are
> already a commercial offering, the main point here is, that lat/lon is made
> responsible for something (providing the server) the company is only doing to
> support the community. But the prosecutor is saying that lat/lon is
> accountable here as per the whois entry.
>
> We are currently evaluating reactions, together with a lawyer who is
> experienced in legal aspects of Open Source. But as a more long-term solution
> I'd say OSGeo should be the legal owner of deegree.org. From my naive legal
> understanding this would help a lot to get things straight and more
> transparent to the outside world.
>
> This case might be a bit special, but it is a real one - and it might have
> some larger impact as I am seeing other projects which have a similiar setting
> and thus might run into the same kind of trouble. Depending on the legal
> situation in the various countries, of course.
>
> My 2 cents,
>
> Jens
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlYeM4YACgkQIaYc4TLqzo9RRgCfYU7HPF0hUYexBPPNlDKJfsAn
> /jwAoJbtQYAZSwSgqSLhiQxoD+lz+E3M
> =BjaO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----