[OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

Mon Aug 21 14:52:43 PDT 2017

Hi,

specifically this page, it's company, we are more people (about 5-7 - I do
cover the accounting and paper work) - but it's official "ltd."

I'm happy with the content (as I can only be) - do you have any problem
with that?

What IMHO does not work: the News are not clearly separated, it seems, they
belong to the company - but they don't. Same applies to sponsors - some
graphical element (ruler?) would make it more separated

Thanks

J

po 21. 8. 2017 v 23:12 odesílatel Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com>
napsal:

> For your page
> http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/service-providers/opengeolabs/ Is that a
> single consultant (you!) or a company?
> (or perhaps it is just a company with one person in it)
>
> Are you happy with how that page is presented? Not sure about the news
> items (checking now they do not really let us shortlist news or resources
> yet)
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
> On 21 August 2017 at 12:45, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> afaik it was Vasile's overview
>>
>> just noting
>>
>> j
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, 17:59 Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That is perfect Jachym; at least for the beta website the "quick review"
>>> is the very few edit permissions we have handed out. I like how this
>>> discussion is covering what we should consider for listing "other" (or
>>> "foss4g") projects in the future.
>>>
>>> One of the coolest things I saw at the conference was a spreadsheet of
>>> open source spatial projects that Angelos had. It outlined and visualized
>>> several hundred open source spatial projects (most of which I had never
>>> heard of).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jody Garnett
>>>
>>> On 21 August 2017 at 07:28, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepicky at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> just noting: there can be currently "Community projects" and "Other
>>>> projects" on the new OSGeo web page
>>>>
>>>> I agree, being "official OSGeo Community projects" requires some rules
>>>> and approval process
>>>>
>>>> IMHO the "new proposed rules" are ok, if you want just your project
>>>> appear on OSGeo Web page as "other project", it still should be
>>>> peer-reviewed by some of the page administrators, but that would not make
>>>> you to community project
>>>>
>>>> example: Yesterday I add Gisquick to new OSGeo web page
>>>> http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/projects/gisquick/ it should be listed
>>>> among "Other projects", not community
>>>>
>>>> hope, it's ok?
>>>>
>>>> J
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ne 20. 8. 2017 v 1:07 odesílatel James Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com>
>>>> napsal:
>>>>
>>>>> I generally agree with Even's comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> W.r.t. Not requireing other licenses clause, I would like to add a
>>>>> question about how this would apply to free software that is mostly
>>>>> intended to operate with non-free data?  e.g. GDAL drivers that enable
>>>>> reading proprietary formats via a vendor SDK or formats that tend to only
>>>>> be used with strictly licensed data or reading data from non-open standards
>>>>> based web services (where you only control the client but the client is
>>>>> pointless without a running server which requires its own separate license).
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 19, 2017 08:40, "Even Rouault" <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Angelos,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and
>>>>>> your proposal sounds good to me. A few comments below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > I would like to propose a way forward:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated
>>>>>> with OSGeo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > (as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are
>>>>>> somewhat responsible for it, so you must ensure that it meets some minimum
>>>>>> criteria that are in the "OSGeo spirit"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > A proposal for *new* rules:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > * Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the
>>>>>> web in a
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > public place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is
>>>>>> released with an OSI or FSF approved license and is available on the web in
>>>>>> a public place."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only
>>>>>> as binaries, which makes it not very convenient to modify :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > * Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require
>>>>>> another
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > license to really use it
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't
>>>>>> see this criterion mentioned in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this,
>>>>>> that would for example exclude a Windows executable, since to use it you
>>>>>> must own a Windows license... Even if you take a Linux executable that is
>>>>>> X/MIT licensed, it links against the GNU libc that is GPL licensed (but as
>>>>>> GNU libc is considered part of the OS, there's a provision in the GPL
>>>>>> license to not apply the GPL obligations to the code that links to it). Or
>>>>>> if you take a Java program, it must run within a JVM that comes with its
>>>>>> own license. Same for Python, etc...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But beyond this nitpicking, that criterion can raise more fundamental
>>>>>> debates:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * is the intent to exclude projects that would be open-source
>>>>>> released plugins of a proprietary software for example (the plugin could be
>>>>>> an exporter from proprietary formats/projects to open source ones for
>>>>>> example) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Or open-source released projects that would connect to a
>>>>>> proprietary server (just saw in LWN headlines that Debian is currently
>>>>>> debating whether they should allow OSS software that connect to proprietary
>>>>>> services) ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * What about a fully open-source project that connects to a
>>>>>> proprietary service ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I take the exemple of GDAL, the following situations can be found:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * it is X/MIT licensed but can link to a few GPL licensed lib
>>>>>> (poppler, GRASS, ...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * it can link to proprietrary licensed libs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * it can interact with proprietary services that have a public API,
>>>>>> but don't require linking against proprietary code
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * other/most parts are fully useful on their own
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I think this question alone could deserve its own thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > The project should need to officially apply for being included as
>>>>>> OSGeo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Community Project, by answering a questionnaire (including
>>>>>> information
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > gathering for the web site and provide a point of contact for
>>>>>> maintaining
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > that information in the future)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Relation question: if OSGeo website promotes a community project,
>>>>>> should the website of this project (or github page if no dedicated website)
>>>>>> links to OSGeo one ? I'm not even sure this is a requirement for a
>>>>>> graduated project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.spatialys.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Discuss mailing list
>>>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20170821/83160d0a/attachment.html>