[OSGeo-Standards] OGC XML schemas and FOSS4G softwaredistribution

Mon Feb 16 14:05:08 PST 2015

Added a take to the wiki page
<http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/OGC_XML_Schemas_and_FOSS4G_Software_Distribution>.
Would love to have feedback from from Bas to see if the result would get
past the Debian guidelines.

*Schemas (and DTDs) are frequently part of our specifications and seemingly
fall under the*
*document copyright terms.*

*Applications may use the schema/DTD for under the software license. We ask
that care be taken*
*when making a derivative or modified schema/DTD to preserve
interoperability.*

*As an example a schema/DTD used for internal validation may be modified to
validate additional*
*optional vendor options without affecting interoperability. This has no
impact on interoperability*
*between applications and the resulting schema/DTD remains embedded in the
application.*

*If publishing a modified schema/DTD it no longer qualifies as an OGC
schema/DTD and we ask*
*that a unique formal namespace or public identifier be used to prevent
application confusion.*
*This request is based on the restrictions of XML technology rather than a
license restriction.*

*When using the software terms you are obligated to include/retain the OGC
copyright notice. We*
*further appreciate a couple sentences regarding who made the
modifications, when, and what*
*changes were made in the original DTD -- a common software documentation
practice.*

I have sympathy with the OGC here as there is a technical restrictions in
play here, rather than just a license restrictions. XML parsers having
obtained a schema once (from any source) are not obliged to download it
again from an application (which may of performed modifications).
--
Jody

--
Jody Garnett

On 16 February 2015 at 12:14, Tom Kralidis <tomkralidis at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Standards at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150216/9f16bc09/attachment-0001.html>