[Incubator] motion: qfield recommendation for osgeo community project initiative

[Greg Troxel]

Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> writes:

> This is an example where the "osgeo community" program is not really well
> thought out by the OSGeo board.

:-)

I would suggest that the Board amend the guidelines to require as a
condition of acceptance into incubation and at all times thereafter that
the project clearly document licensing and be in good standing with
respect to having a license regime that meets the Open Source Definition
(or the Free Software Definition; saying either would be fine) and that
the project's activities comply with the license obligations from
third-party code.

I view this as basic and implicit, but it is a fair point that it should
be adopted formally.

> We have no mechanism to work through any difficult topics with potential
> applicants. With the full "osgeo project" incubation process there is a
> mentor assigned to each project team which can act as a point of contact to
> work through difficult issues that are not suitable for public discussion.

I can certainly believe some issues are like that.  But I think that the
heart of this is open source, and that means license compliance as a
non-negotiable core value.

> And indeed our osgeo community struggles with the idea that some topics are
> not suitable for public discussion 🙂

I can believe that there are some such topics, but I think basic
questions of licensing that I have been raising should be discussed
publically when there is an application for any kind of osgeo status on
the table -- an inherently public act.  (Of course, quite a long time
has passed, and if had been resolved privately and we arrived at a good
state, that would have been ok -- but we aren't there.)

I am hoping that the reality is actually ok, but I find it concerning
that there has been no explanation at all to what I think is a
reasonable and straightforward question.

I would say it is entirely fine to withdraw the application, work
through the issues perhaps privately, and then when there is public
documentation about all the licensing issues, restart it.