[OSGeo-Standards] OGC XML schemas and FOSS4G softwaredistribution

Mon Feb 16 12:14:09 PST 2015

Hi all: Cameron suggested we brainstorm ideas to put forth for Carl et. al.

I've bootstrapped http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_XML_Schemas_and_FOSS4G_Software_Distribution
for folks to augment.  The next TC is 09 - 13 March 2015, so it would be good
to have something by then, which (as nhv states) would need to be passed through the OSGeo Board?

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:

> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:10:31 +0100
> From: Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic at xs4all.nl>
> To: Carl Reed <creed at opengeospatial.org>
> Cc: Debian GIS Project <debian-gis at lists.debian.org>,
>     standards at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Standards] OGC XML schemas and FOSS4G softwaredistribution
> 
> Hi Carl and others,
>
> Thanks to Tom Kralidis for bringing this thread to my attention. I'm
> bringing the Debian GIS team into the loop too.
>
> On 02/13/2015 06:12 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> I think we better ask around for a contact at Debian (perhaps the person
>> who reviewed pycsw can be approached?). Failing that we could review what
>> the w3c has written which is apparently successful.
>
>> On 9 February 2015 at 11:45, Carl Reed <creed at opengeospatial.org> wrote:
>>> Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. I will be chairing a
>>> session at the Barcelona TC meetings to discuss some proposed changes to
>>> the OGC Policies and Procedures. I would like to add this issue to the
>>> agenda. Any ideas about possible solutions would be most welcome. Quite
>>> honestly, in all my years at the OGC, I never read this section of the OGC
>>> IPR FAQ. You are quite correct in your assessment – Clear as mud!
>
>>> On 7 February 2015 at 07:01, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
>>>> Jody Garnett <jody.garnett at gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> It looks like the technical limitation (do not use the same namespace)
>>>> is
>>>>> getting in the way of software terms. Perhaps it could be relaxed to "do
>>>>> not publish under the same namespace" (allowing its use in pycsw for
>>>>> internal validation).
>>>>
>>>> I suspect Debian's issue is about following the DFSG, and having the
>>>> right to make changes, rather than that they actually *want* to make
>>>> changes now.   I maintain some packages in pkgsrc (multi-OS packaging
>>>> system), and there we require non-Free licenses to be identified, which
>>>> prevents building of the package by default.  But often Debian is in the
>>>> lead for identifying these sorts of issues.
>>>>
>>>> Also, if you said "permission granted under copyright law, but we ask as
>>>> a courtesy that you not do X", that's probably ok with Debian (I can't
>>>> speak for them, but it would not be an issue in pkgsrc).
>
> The issue with the OGC Document & Software Notice terms in Debian are
> indeed their non-compliance with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and
> specifically the right to modifications. To quote the relevant clauses
> of the DFSG:
>
> "
> 3. Derived Works
>
>   The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
>   allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of
>   the original software.
>
> 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
>
>   The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in
>   modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch
>   files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program
>   at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of
>   software built from modified source code. The license may require
>   derived works to carry a different name or version number from the
>   original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group
>   encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary,
>   from being modified.)
> "
>
> https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
>
> The problematic OGC license terms were first discussed with the Debian
> FTP master after they rejected the upload of TinyOWS. The tinyows
> packages was already included in UbuntuGIS and OSGeo-Live for some time,
> but it never found its way into Debian.
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2014-January/017300.html
>
> I've written to site-policy at opengeospatial.org to discuss this issue,
> but I never received a response. Please refer to the debian-gis list
> archive for the message in question.
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-gis/2014/01/msg00032.html
>
> One way to address this issue is to change the DFSG, adding another
> compromise for standards related files. But changing the DFSG requires a
> General Resolution with a 3:1 majority to be accepted, because changing
> a Foundation Documents (Social Contract & DFSG) is not taken lightly in
> the Debian project.
>
> https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution#item-4
>
> Debian doesn't include RFCs for similar reasons to those with the OGC
> notice terms. The new IETFS copyright notice explicitly forbids
> modifications not approved via the standards process.
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments
> https://bugs.debian.org/199810
>
> To deal with the problematic OGC notices the problematic files are
> excluded from the Debian package where possible. The CITE tests included
> in TinyOWS & PostGIS are removed for their Debian packages. The XSD
> schemas are not so easily stripped from the packages because they are
> more essential to the operation of the programs unlike their testsuites.
>
> Most CITE tests ship with the OGC Document Notice included, which makes
> sense for their role in assuring standards compliance, but their role in
> software would make the more permissive Software Notice more appropriate.
>
> Both the OGC Document Notice and the OGC Software Notice are problematic
> with respect to the DFSG. The first paragraph of the Software Notice
> contains:
>
> "
> By obtaining, using and/or copying this work, you (the licensee)
> agree that you have read, understood, and will comply with the
> following terms and conditions.
> "
>
> This is not possible in the Debian package management, prompting to
> accept license terms is not possible before obtaining the work. The
> package first needs to be downloaded from the repository (obtained)
> before the debconf prompt can be used to allow the user to accept or
> reject the terms and conditions.
>
> Luckily this was not problematic enough to also reject TinyOWS from the
> non-free repository, but not having it in the main repo is a pain
> (non-free is not autobuilt by default for instance).
>
> Please refer to the email by Thorsten Alteholz in the thread he spawned
> with the rejection of the Debian package for TinyOWS.
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2014-January/017321.html
>
> In that message Thorsten also requests an clear statement from OGC about
> which terms apply to CITE tests.
>
> It would be very helpful if OGC could join the discussion with the
> Debian FTP masters to clearify their position.
>
> Because a change in the Debian projects strict adherence to the DFSG is
> not expected in the short term, it would also be very helpful if the
> terms for OGC standards works could be changed to be more permissive
> with modifications. This would greatly ease work required to include
> OSGeo software with OGC works in Linux distributions, not only Debian.
> Debian is just one of the strictest in upholding the principals of Free
> Software, only the FSF endorsed distributions are even stricter.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Bas
>
> -- 
> GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1
> Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards