[Incubator] platforms discussion

[Jody Garnett]

Greg was not signed up to the list; so I am forward his reply. Greg I am
sorry you were tagged into a mailing list conversation that can be
frustrating. You will need to sign up if you wish to take part in the
discussion.

Keep in mind that OSGeo did not quality as a charity, it is more like a
community group that takes care of a park, and also benefits from the park.
As an example if GeoCat sponsors an a GeoServer activity, we also benefit
because we have products based on GeoServer.

There was a very good discussion around GDAL and fundraising on the
advantages of setting up a pure charity to support an open source
community; the differences were all very subtle and I was not comfortable
that I understand how such a thing is setup.

I do not have the same strong viewpoints as you Greg, but understand and
respect where you are coming from. I think a pure charity based around
those principles could be setup and be a valuable contribution to community
sustainability (and provide another source avenue for funding).

Jody

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 7:08 AM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

>
> Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > OSGeo does support (and sometimes require) CLAs providing
> > asymmetrical rights on code bases such as GeoTools and GeoServer (
> > 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.
>
> I'm not clear on the background, but this sounds reasonable.
>
> I think the big point is osgeo's duty, and I think that's a duty to act
> in the public interest.  So supporting a project should not be
> conditioned only on technical licensing test, but that a project is
> acting in the public interest.  To me, that more or less means at a
> minimum all the following are true:
>
>   There is no proprietary dual licensing going on.
>
>   The open source code is the best version of the code.
>
>   Control of the project is either with a community group or a
>   charitable oganization (no non-charitable corporate control)
>
>   Any CLAs that grant rights beyond inbound=outbound are 1) to a charity
>   or osgeo itself and 2) come with reciprocal commitments to staying
>   open source.
>
> And, implicit in the above that a "trade association", 501(c)6 in the
> US, which is required to act in the common bussiness interests of
> members, is not a charity.
>
> This isn't to say a project not meeting the above "is not open source".
> But I think it means that it should not be part of a community blessed
> by a charity-like organization.
>
>
> (I'm a little unclear on osgeo's status, and am guessing it's a charity
> in canada and due to some rule nits is 501(c)4 in the US.  It would be
> nice to explain that clearly on the web page; I didn't find it when I
> went to look a few weeks ago.)
>
>
> If I get auto- rejected from incubator@, I'd appreciate one of you
> forwarding this.
>
> Greg (speaking for myself, with no corporate control!)
>
> --
--
Jody Garnett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/incubator/attachments/20210924/db478ce9/attachment.html>