[Incubator] platforms discussion
Peter Baumann
p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
Fri Sep 24 00:42:54 PDT 2021
folks, be careful.
OSGeo, in its limited view on the world, is again starting getting derogative
about rasdaman.
Please be careful about your choice of words in the context of rasdaman -
probably we all do not want to open this discussion again.
-Peter
On 24.09.21 06:43, Bruce Bannerman wrote:
> Regarding OSI Licenses, I understand this Jody.
>
> However this position does not cater for undesirable proprietary dual license
> aspects.
>
> Again the Rasdaman example. From memory, at the time of the incubation vote,
> this product was subject to dual licensing, the open source variant using
> approved OSI licences. However the open source version was severely
> constrained, particularly from aspects that improved product performance.
>
> Consequently, at the time of the incubation vote, one member of the Incubation
> Committee described the open source variant as “crippleware”.
>
>
> Now I don’t want to make this about one product.
>
> I’d like to see us have a clear position to avoid such problems in the future.
> I don’t think that we can just say that we don’t accept the Benevelent
> Dictator model and that solves all problems.
>
> I also don’t want to see us chase away involvement in projects and project
> sponsorship by proprietary organisations. This would be foolish.
>
>
> I have a similar view on CLAs. If used appropriately, they can protect a
> codebase and make it easier to manage IP arrangements should it become necessary.
>
> But I also understand that they can be abused with undesirable outcomes for an
> open source community. There are many examples of these that we can all recall
> quite easily.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>> On 24 Sep 2021, at 02:37, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com
>> <mailto:jody.garnett at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Bruce:
>>
>> We presently follow the OSI approved list, much easier to follow then to
>> manage our own criteria.
>>
>> However this discussion appears to be around governance and control; and I
>> think we are very clear on these topics. Even during the Rasdaman discussion
>> we were very clear that the benevolent dictator model did not meet our goals
>> for open governance. It was frustrating this the discussion took so
>> long: benevolent dictator is of course a valid model, it is just not one that
>> matches our ideals.
>>
>> OSGeo does support (and sometimes require) CLAs providing asymmetrical rights
>> on code bases such as GeoTools and GeoServer
>> (https://www.osgeo.org/about/licenses/
>> <https://www.osgeo.org/about/licenses/>). This increased permissions for the
>> PSC has allowed these committees to donate fixes to more permissive projects
>> such as GeoServer (GPL with EPL exception) --> GeoTools (LGPL); or GeoTools
>> (LGPL) to JTS (BSD). The use of CLA to establish asymmetrical rights has a
>> community building use in this respect; however the same tool is used to
>> enable some of the harmful (to the open community) practices being remarked on.
>>
>> It is a shame folks like Elasticsearch and MapBox abandoning open source, as
>> I really appreciate it as a way to produce excellent software and manage risk
>> across a wide range of stakeholders. In many cases the justifications feel
>> self imposed. If an organization is not seeing enough contributions to
>> justify continuing a project as open source, I can point to an organization
>> that did not setup equal governance to promote contributions between equals.
>>
>> Personally I like free-software, and open-source software held by a vendor
>> neutral organization (such as OSGeo). Everything else seems a bit risky.
>>
>> OSGeo does not provide such a hard line, but by stressing projects need to be
>> willing for others to take part in governance (no benevolent dictator model)
>> I believe the foundation is clear in what kind of project we support. There
>> is a reason projects such as MapBoxGL or Cesium did not apply to be part of
>> OSGeo after all.
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Sept 2021 at 17:31, Bruce Bannerman
>> <bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com <mailto:bruce.bannerman.osgeo at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> <https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/2021-September/001274.html>
>>
>> [2] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality/
>> <https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/jan/06/copyleft-equality/>
>>
>>
>>> On 17 Sep 2021, at 01:59, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com
>>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto:jody.garnett at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a useful definition of a framework (quite technical)
>>> here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_framework
>>> <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
>>> <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
>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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/
>>>>> <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
>>>>> <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
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>> <mailto:Incubator at lists.osgeo.org>
>>>>> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
>>>>> <https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Jody Garnett
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Incubator mailing list
> Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/incubator
--
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
https://www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
https://rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20210924/1a8a999d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Incubator
mailing list