Correction on GNU GPL use (was: Re: [Incubator] GeoNetwork motioned for graduation)

Mon Apr 7 11:56:22 EDT 2008

Thanks Arnulf,
Let me try to address the other questions.
I'm asking feedback from the PSC (and other) GeoNetwork members on the  
number of business days a proposal should be up for vote to see if we  
would extend that to three, or if we'd rather want to allow PSC  
members to ask for more time, which would than automatically be  
granted for a couple of days.
More below:

On Apr 7, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Arnulf Christl wrote:

> Hi All,
> my fault wrt to use of GNU GPL text. Everything is fine, see my  
> comments below.
> Arnulf Christl wrote:
>> Jody Garnett wrote:
>>> Incubator list:
>>>
>>> I move that we recommend the GeoNetwork project to the OSGeo Board  
>>> for graduation, with Jeroen Ticheler acting as the project  
>>> representative.
>>>
>>> The GeoNetwork project has been diligent in meeting incubation  
>>> requirements. I have been especially pleased to watch the project  
>>> steering committee form and start making decisions in public  
>>> (including the decision to apply for graduation at this time).
>>>
>>> The provenance review and incubation status links are here:
>>> - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoNetwork_Provenance_Review
>>> - http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoNetwork_Incubation_Status
>>>
>>> Jody Garnett
>> Hi,
>> if this needs a second I am willing to give it. Very nice work,  
>> well prepared and from what I can see I have no objections to see  
>> GeoNetwork graduate aoon. But I have a few comments.
>> == License ==
>> There is a slight diff between the current GNU GPL and the text  
>> used in GeoNetwork (as listed here: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/GeoNetwork_Provenance_Review) 
>> . In the latter case there is a reference to the website only  
>> whereas in the original a postal address is given.
>> <original>
>> You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>> along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
>> Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  
>> 02110-1301, USA
>> </original>
>> <geonetwork>
>> You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>> along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>> </geonetwork>
>
> I mixed this up myself, too eager to find diff in wordings (it  
> happens so often...) I compared the GeoNetwork version (which is V2)  
> to GNU GPL V3 - and there they now use a link instead of the pastal  
> address. The old one perfectly fine, so this q is answered.
> Sorry for the confusion!
>
> Arnulf.
>> This is not a real world problem but legally it means that you are  
>> not using the GNU GPL.
>> == Copyright ==
>> I do not know what implications UN Copyright ownership might one  
>> day have for us. From experience this kind of large organization  
>> might one day find out that they have taken a strategic decision  
>> for some proprietary vendor resulting in reduced support for an  
>> Open Source project. This has recently happened with the IOSN  
>> (International Open Source Network) where the UN association has  
>> been discontinued.
>> In such a case it would be nice to know that OSGeo could get a  
>> license or copyright assignment or - better even - full copyright  
>> ownership. There are convincing examples to point at, one being  
>> Autodesk's donation of MapGuide Open Source copyright to OSGeo or  
>> Google's donation of KML copyright to the OGC.

The transfer of the copyright was something that I took up early on in  
the incubation process. It was at that point my understanding that  
this would be a good thing. After discussion with Jody, including some  
on the incubation list, it was suggested not to bother and to follow  
practice of the other projects. That is to keep the copyright as is  
(for most projects I think, see emails on this dated 17 Oct 2007 on  
Incubator list).
I'd like to better understand what the risks are for OSGeo not to  
pursue this change? The code is currently released under a GPL license  
which as far as I understands protects the code released (at that  
time) to suddenly become proprietary!? The code released under GPL  
will still be usable under that license, also when the copyright owner  
decides to change its (future) policy regarding open source!?
If I'm wrong on this, please let me know. I can contact our legal  
service in FAO to see if we can move the copyright to OSGeo if need be.
I discussed with Arnulf, because I couldn't find evidence that IOSN  
was disconnected from the UN. It does not seem so for now.
>>
>> == PSC and Governance ==
>> Comments and Questions on: http://trac.osgeo.org/geonetwork/wiki/PSC
>> Detailed process:
>>  1. Proposals are written up and submitted on the geonetwork-dev  
>> mailing list for discussion and voting, by any interested party,  
>> not just committee members.
>> # Does this mean that anybody can also vote (not only discuss)?  
>> There is some potential in this passage if a malicious group wants  
>> to take over. Is a quorum required? What is the minimum +1 needed  
>> to pass a motion. Imagine someone posting a hairy proposal in the  
>> afternoon of December 24th and make it pass December 26th.

It means everybody can write proposals that will go up for discussion  
and voting. It does not give others than the PSC the right to vote.

>>
>>  2. Proposals need to be available for review for at least two  
>> business days before a final decision can be made.
>> # That seems a very short time to me. I would not be able to review  
>> that quick. Suggestion to make it at least three and add "business  
>> days".

Under discussion as mentioned above.
>>
>>  3. Respondents may vote "+1" to indicate support for the proposal  
>> and a willingness to support implementation.
>>  4. Respondents may vote "-1" to veto a proposal, but must provide  
>> clear reasoning and alternate approaches to resolving the problem  
>> within the two days.
>>  5. A vote of -0 indicates mild disagreement, but has no effect. A  
>> 0 indicates no opinion. A +0 indicate mild support, but has no  
>> effect.
>>  6. Anyone may comment on proposals on the list, but only members  
>> of the Project Steering Committee's votes will be counted.
>>  7. A proposal will be accepted if it receives +2 (including the  
>> proposer) and no vetos (-1).
>>  8. If a proposal is vetoed, and it cannot be revised to satisfy  
>> all parties, then it can be resubmitted for an override vote in  
>> which a majority of all eligible voters indicating +1 is sufficient  
>> to pass it. Note that this is a majority of all committee members,  
>> not just those who actively vote.
>> # Who are "eligible voters"? (see above q. wrt to quorum)

As mentioned under 6, only PSC votes will be counted. A veto can be  
issued after which a majority vote is required.

>>
>>  9. Upon completion of discussion and voting the proposer should  
>> announce whether they are proceeding (proposal accepted) or are  
>> withdrawing their proposal (vetoed).
>> 10. The Chair gets a vote.
>> 11. The Chair is responsible for keeping track of who is a member  
>> of the Project Steering Committee.
>> 12. Addition and removal of members from the committee, as well as  
>> selection of a Chair should be handled as a proposal to the  
>> committee. The selection of a new Chair also requires approval of  
>> the OSGeo board.
>> 13. The Chair adjudicates in cases of disputes about voting.
>> Who is the TSC? It is only mentioned once here:
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/geonetwork/wiki/release_strategy

This needs to be corrected into PSC (we used TSC before, but changed  
to PSC to be more inline with common practice in OSGeo).

>> Currently it is possible to edit all pages in the Trac Wiki  
>> including this one: http://trac.osgeo.org/geonetwork/wiki/PSC
>> with the standard OSGeo user account. Maybe this page should be  
>> copied to a more restricted place (geonetwork.osgeo.org) or it  
>> should be write protected (thought I doubt that Trac allows for  
>> this).

Yes, good idea. Should we adopt some common strategy for this for all  
OSGeo projects?
Cheers,
Jeroen

>>
>> As far as I am concerned none of these issues are blockers but I  
>> would like to see them addressed or acknowledged before giving my  
>> plusone.
>> Best regards, Arnulf.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Incubator mailing list
>> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>