[Incubator] platforms discussion

Wed Sep 22 17:31:13 PDT 2021

Hi Jody,

These thoughts extend on your ‘there can be only one’ comment below.

I think that we in the Incubation Committee and our potential future incubating projects would benefit from our better defining what type of open source project we will support.

Greg Troxel contributed valuable insight into a discussion that we were having in the OSGeo Standards list on the proposed OGC/OSGeo MOU. See [1] for context.

With apologies to Greg for my paraphrasing, I understand Greg’s arguments to strongly differentiate between open source projects that are subject to proprietary relicensing and those that are not. 

Greg contributed the blog link at [2] as part of the discussion. This is an insightful read.

If we had had a clear policy on the type of open source project that we are willing to support during the unfortunate situation with the Rasdaman Incubation vote, we could have avoided a lot of the angst and miscommunication that occurred on both sides.

So before we progress too much further on the ‘Platforms’ discussion, I think that it would be beneficial to resolve the OSGeo Incubation supported open source model issue definitively.  I believe that this will make it much easier to progress the platforms discussion, and future incubations.

While I have concerns over the interpretation of what a Contributions Licence is, I believe that the links at [1] and [2] are a good starting point to get this sorted out.

Kind regards,

Bruce

[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/2021-September/001274.html

[2] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality/ 

> On 17 Sep 2021, at 01:59, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> It is kind of like the “highlander-principle” if the phrase “there can be only one” applies … you are not open source.
> 
> Jody
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 6:38 PM Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is a useful definition of a framework (quite technical) here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework
>> 
>>> Software frameworks have these distinguishing features that separate them from libraries or normal user applications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework
>>> inversion of control - In a framework, unlike in libraries or normal user applications, the overall program's flow of control is not dictated by the caller, but by the framework.[1]
>>> default behavior - A framework has a default behavior. This default behavior must actually be some useful behavior and not a series of no-ops.
>>> extensibility - A framework can be extended by the user usually by selective overriding or specialized by user code providing specific functionality.
>>> non-modifiable framework code - The framework code, in general, is not allowed to be modified. Users can extend the framework, but not modify its code.
>> While all of that is technically true it is perhaps a bit too detailed for our purpose.
>> 
>> The core distinction is earlier in the thread:
>> - Does your open source code support a single website? Or is is setup for use by others?
>> - Are you building a community around services? This is a user community ...
>> - Are you building a community around software? This is still a user community ...
>> - Are you building a community around software where the software source code is available to look at? This is still a user community ... looking at you Elasticsearch
>> - Are you building a community around software with shared responsibility and risk (enabled by a license to view *and change* source code)? This is a free or open-source community (depending on which license chosen by the group)
>> 
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 18:32, Bruce Bannerman <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jody,
>>> 
>>> I don’t expect anything constructive from the AGM. People won’t have time to reflect.
>>> 
>>> …now what is a ‘Framework’?
>>> 
>>> I suggest that we define what we support and take it from there. We can always adjust, if required.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> Bruce
>>> 
>>>>> On 4 Sep 2021, at 05:27, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Bruce,
>>>> 
>>>> I did not get anything useful from the board; perhaps it is a subject for the AGM.
>>>> 
>>>> For now the way forward seems to be to recast the platform as a framework and ensure the resulting software stack and be picked up and run independently (with a quickstart or similar).
>>>> --
>>>> Jody Garnett
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 21:57, Bruce Bannerman <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Jody,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Personally:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don’t mind a situation where an open source project attempts to develop and maintain software that is intended to integrate a number of software components into a working product which could perhaps be called a platform.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I can see many situations where the ‘platform’ might deploy both components and the platform’s specific customisations concurrently.
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, I would not support a situation where that product (or platform) can only be implemented once. I’d prefer that it can be implemented many times by different organisations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> While such a ‘platform’ project would look after its own "integration related software", I’d see that the individual components would be subject to their own open source project community’s governance practices.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This could get quite messy, when the integration related software is actually a customisation of an existing software component with its own open source community already in existence. This would require careful and close collaboration between both communities…
>>>>> 
>>>>> That will do for now, let’s see what others think.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 15 Jul 2021, at 01:21, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is indeed overloaded, and no I cannot clarify as the applicants that are coming in are slightly different from each other.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Turn-key portals such as https://www.osgeo.org/choose-a-project/information-technology/portal/ these showcase a range of projects. Some like geomoose are presented as frameworks, others like GC2/Vidi are presented as a platform.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would be cautious about an open source project that just supports a single website (like http://github.com/mapstory), but perhaps that is my own bias? There is an advantage to users of a platform being able to review the code responsible for the service they are using. But this represents new ground for OSGeo, hence the discussion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I also brought this discussion to the osgeo board list; so we do not need to decide on our own.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jody Garnett
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 at 18:56, Bruce Bannerman <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Jody,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The concept of a platform is quite overloaded and means different things to different people.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Can you please clarify what you mean by ‘platform’?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> > On 12 Jul 2021, at 18:30, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>> > Discussion topic for incubation committee:
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>> > We are getting applications from platforms seeking to join OSGeo.
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>> > What do you think?
>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>> > Jody Garnett
>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> > Incubator mailing list
>>>>>>> > Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
>>>>>>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
> -- 
> --
> Jody Garnett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20210923/5b5655d8/attachment.html>