[PROJ] NOAA VDatum Tidal Grids and PROJ CDN

[Lesparre, Jochem]

I agree with Martin Desruisseaux that there are good reasons to want to restrict modifications in grid files. From a national geodetic infrastructure agency point of view, I feel uncomfortable with allowing users to alter the content of the grid shift files. For the moment we do allow modification however, to promote the distribution and use of the official transformation. In an attempt to prevent users from altering the grid shift files or other parts of the transformation, we made the name of the official transformation a registered trademark. We only allow the use of this trademark after written approval, and only if the correct transformation is used. To check the correctness of transformations we created a transformation validation website [1]. Here one can download a dataset with 10000 points, transform these with a method of choice and upload the result. The transformation validation website will then give the percentage of points transformed correctly within 1 mm.

Regards, Jochem
Netherlands Partnership Geodetic Infrastructure (NSGI)

[1] https://www.nsgi.nl/geodetische-infrastructuur/producten/programma-rdnaptrans/validatieservice

From: PROJ <proj-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> On Behalf Of Martin Desruisseaux
Sent: donderdag 17 december 2020 15:57
To: proj at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [PROJ] NOAA VDatum Tidal Grids and PROJ CDN


Le 17/12/2020 à 14:53, Sebastiaan Couwenberg a écrit :

On 12/17/20 2:22 PM, Even Rouault wrote:

From our free software developer & user perspective, the ISO geodetic registry is no better than EPSG due to using quite similar terms of use than the EPSG one: https://geodetic.isotc211.org/terms A true (and non custom!) open data license would make it a much more appealing alternative.

This cannot be seconded enough! Limiting modification makes inclusion in open source projects problematic.

I see two aspects in the EPSG/ISO license:

  *   A restriction on commercial use.
  *   A restriction on modifications.

I agree that the restriction on commercial use is problematic. But the restriction on modifications is more debatable, as there is legitimate reasons to want to protect data or standard integrity. Greg gave a good example of case where ability to make modifications is desirable, but on the other hand there is also historical examples of damages caused by standards changed at project's will. The concept of "Open standard" is debated at a larger scale than us, and may be something open source projects should adapt to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

We may argue that the current reality is that EPSG license does not fit well in MIT-licensed project. But for making progress we need to not only express our point of view, but also understand their concerns and see how we could address them.

    Martin




Disclaimer:
De inhoud van dit bericht is uitsluitend bestemd voor geadresseerde.
Gebruik van de inhoud van dit bericht door anderen zonder toestemming van het Kadaster
is onrechtmatig. Mocht dit bericht ten onrechte bij u terecht komen, dan verzoeken wij u
dit direct te melden aan de verzender en het bericht te vernietigen.
Aan de inhoud van dit bericht kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend.

Disclaimer:
The content of this message is meant to be received by the addressee only.
Use of the content of this message by anyone other than the addressee without the consent
of the Kadaster is unlawful. If you have received this message, but are not the addressee,
please contact the sender immediately and destroy the message.
No rights can be derived from the content of this message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/proj/attachments/20201221/4d65ac7f/attachment.html>