[OSGeo-Discuss] Board Proposal: Statement of OSGeo Legal Support

Wed Oct 31 11:11:26 PDT 2007

Arnulf wrote: " As long as we have more or less empty pockets and do not
aim at leveraging money as a major facilitator against anybody and we
continue to build our brand as being a straight group of spatial FOSS
addicts there is little reason to get at us from the legal side anyway.
What would you get? A bad reputation, little or no money at all and a
large bunch of really angry people. Hooray, lets go sue some
Foundations."

This is good point. However, I don't think we should forget the
possibility of legal action that doesn't seek money, but to simply "shut
down" an organization. Lawsuits can be very scary things, and I think we
can all bring to mind or FOSS project or two that was shut down because
of the mere threat of a lawsuit. Sometimes it only takes a nasty letter
from a lawyer to shut things down.

Arnulf wrote: " We should get a lawyer only when we need one as we
cannot anticipate in which context we will need her."

In my humble opinion it is always better to talk to a layer sooner
rather than latter, especially if we can do it for free. But Arnulf is
correct, we should have specific topics to discuss. Perhaps we need to
create a well defined scope for the OSGeo and then talk to a lawyer
about issues we need to be aware of based on that scope?

Landon

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Arnulf Christl
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:08 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Proposal: Statement of OSGeo Legal
Support

Cameron Shorter wrote:
> Good processes + no money is an acceptable strategy so long as we have

> consciously made this decision and everyone is aware of the strategy.

Hello,
keeping budgets low already is a corporate strategy of OSGeo as far as I
am concerned. I am eager to extend this strategy to Legal Support. We
are not here to fight legal wars but to further Free and Open Source
Software. Whenever someone does want to pick on us we should have a
solid ground and we have this with the incubation guidelines as they
are. All that has to  happen then will then happen, not now. 

As long as we have more or less empty pockets and do not aim at
leveraging money as a major facilitator against anybody and we continue
to build our brand as being a straight group of spatial FOSS addicts
there is little reason to get at us from the legal side anyway. What
would you get? A bad reputation, little or no money at all and a large
bunch of really angry people. Hooray, lets go sue some Foundations. 

I disagree with Frank and find that Adrian Custer's proposed document
for the GeoTools Project is a good starting point. As everything in this
world it is not perfect and it will develop in future. Additionally I
think we do not even need this document if it gives anybody a headache. 

My personal opinion is that a lot of the discussion is beside the point
and we are oftentimes confusing copyright, ownership, originator's
rights, branding and what really makes up a project - the community
around it. We should get a lawyer only when we need one as we cannot
anticipate in which context we will need her. Please never ever be IANAL
again, I am tired of reading that phrase. 

Call me simplistic but I am still of the strong opinion that all we need
to do is get some GeoTools developers go through the project files,
change the Copyright to point at OSGeo and commit. My only concern was
that the developers might feel they lose control and OSGeo could go
berserk and sell the code Copyright to some big bad corporation. I think
it simply cannot. And even if it did it wouldn't make any difference as
anybody can always fork the last GNUed one and go for it. Can we get
over it, please and let GeoTools graduate?  

Best regards, 
Arnulf. 

> Allan Doyle wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2007, at 15:09 , Michael P. Gerlek wrote:
>>
>>> Way back on that cold day in Chicago, I'm not sure anyone ever
really
>>> thought about what it would mean when we said we'd "offer legal
>>> protection".
>>>
>>> Does it imply/lead-to/entail some sort of indemnification?  Ouch,
that
>>> would be pricey...  How does the Apache gang, et al, handle this?
>>
>> My recollection is that the Apache gang carefully keeps their coffers

>> empty and makes sure the code all legally belongs to the Apache 
>> Foundation. Thus there's not enough of a pot of gold to win in a
suit.
>>
>> However, I'm guessing that this strategy depends on a pretty 
>> well-defined process to ensure there are no loopholes.
>>
>>     Allan
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -mpg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Landon Blake
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 7:56 AM
>>>> To: OSGeo Discussions
>>>> Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Proposal: Statement of
>>>> OSGeo Legal Support
>>>>
>>>> Cameron,
>>>>
>>>> I think this is an excellent idea, and a lawyer should definitely
be
>>>> consulted. I wonder if the legal staff at the Software Freedom
>>>> Conservancy could assist.
>>>>
>>>> Landon
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Cameron
Shorter
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:56 AM
>>>> To: OSGeo-Board
>>>> Cc: OSGeo Discussions; Adrian Custer
>>>> Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] Board Proposal: Statement of OSGeo Legal
>>>> Support
>>>>
>>>> OSGeo Board, (CC to OSGeo Discuss),
>>>>
>>>> During the founding of OSGeo, it was often noted that OSGeo
projects
>>>> would benefit from OSGeo legal protection. Now, as Geotools
wrestles
>>>> with graduation criteria and how to handle license assignment, the
>>>> nature and level of legal protection offered by OSGeo is
>>>> unclear. Also
>>>> unclear is the level of legal review available (as tested by
Geotools
>>>> crafting of a Copywrite Assignment document).
>>>> Consequently, geotools is having difficulty deciding whether
>>>> it is wise
>>>> to assign copywrite to OSGeo.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect a large part of the problem is that board members (like
>>>> myself) are not lawyers and don't have a clear understanding of the
>>>> options, the value of each of the options to OSGeo and the
>>>> projects (how
>>>> much protection is given), and the cost both in time and
financially.
>>>> Key questions to answer for each option are:
>>>> * What level of support is given to contributors and license
reviewers
>>>> (individuals and companies)
>>>> * What level of support is given to OSGeo users?
>>>> * What level of support is given to projects? Will OSGeo
>>>> fight a license
>>>> infringer on behalf of a project?
>>>> * What level of support is given to the OSGeo Foundation?
>>>>
>>>> *Proposal*
>>>> That the board makes a clear statement on their website about
>>>> nature and
>>>> level of support offered by OSGeo to OSGeo projects and
Individuals.
>>>> This statement needs to be backed up with a budget item addressing
>>>> financial implications related to the statement.
>>>>
>>>> Implementation:
>>>> I suggest the steps to achieve the above would be:
>>>> 1. Board approves budget to have a lawyer, or volunteer with legal
>>>> review, to draw up a list of options and their financial
>>>> implications.
>>>> Adrian Custer's review provides an excellent basis for a
>>>> lawyer to start
>>>>
>>>> from.
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Geotools+Legal+Review
>>>> 2. Board votes to select best option.
>>>> 3. OSGeo financial sponsors are given opportunity to contribute to
>>>> decision.
>>>> 4. OSGeo budgets for decision
>>>> 5. OSGeo records the legal stance publicly (on a webpage).
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Warning:
>>>> Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed
>>>> against defects including translation and transmission
>>>> errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are
>>>> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
>>>> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
>>>> have received this information in error, please notify the
>>>> sender immediately.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Warning:
Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately.