tinyows_1.1.0-3_amd64.changes REJECTED

Sebastiaan Couwenberg sebastic at xs4all.nl
Sat Jan 4 20:19:09 UTC 2014

On 01/04/2014 08:00 PM, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> unfortunately I have to reject your package.
> I am afraid that files under the OGC license are not allowed to enter main.
> Especially the paragraph:
>  No right to create modifications or derivatives of OGC documents is granted                                                                                                                                             
>  pursuant to this license. However, if additional requirements (documented                                                                                                                                               
>  in the Copyright FAQ) are satisfied, the right to create modifications or                                                                                                                                               
>  derivatives is sometimes granted by the OGC to individuals complying with                                                                                                                                               
>  those requirements. 
> does not comply with DFSG.

To my best understanding only the OGC Standards documents fall under the
OGC Document Notice.


Schemas and software are covered by the OGC Software Notice.


The debian/copyright did not reflect this correctly by only including
the standard OGC Document Notice which upstream includes as LICENSE
file, but not the Software Notice linked within it.

The first paragraph of the OGC Document Notice states that schemas and
software fall under the Software Notice:

 Public documents on the OGC site are provided by the copyright holders
 under the following license. The software or Document Type Definitions
 (DTDs) associated with OGC specifications are governed by the Software

The OGC Legal FAQ also explicitly states that schemas fall under the
Software Notice:

 1. Which statements apply to specifications, Web pages, and software?

 IPR Notice and Disclaimers [1] General web site copyright, trademark,
 and legal disclaimer statements. Document Notice [2] Information on
 reproducing OGC work including Adopted Implementation Standards,
 Abstract Specifications, and Recommendation Papers and other
 documentation.  Software Notice [3] Information on using and modifying OGC

 [1] http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/policies
 [2] http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/document
 [3] http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/software


 5.10 Is a schema or document definition (DTD) covered by the document
 or software terms?

 Schemas (and DTDs) are frequently part of our specifications and
 seemingly fall under the document copyright terms [2]. However, as
 long as you do not use the same formal namespace or public identifier
 to identify that modified OGC schema/DTD (which might confuse
 applications), you may treat the schema/DTD under the software terms.
 [3] This means that you are permitted to make a derivative or modified
 OGC schema/DTD, but even under the software terms [3] 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.

 We expect to revisit this topic as metadata schemas become an
 increasingly important part of OGC specifications and as the metadata
 schema definition capabilities of XML and other XML technologies


The WFS tests are not explicitly mentioned as falling under the OGC
Software Notice. So it can be argued that because they are conformance
tests for the OGC Standards that OGC doesn't allow their modification.

On the other hand the conformance tests are intended to be included in
OGC compliant open source software, which is the reason for the more
liberal OGC Software Notice.

I've updated the packaging in the Debian GIS git repository to include
the OGC Software Notice and use it for the schemas and tests:


Do you consider the OGC Sofware Notice used in this change to comply
with the DFSG?

> So maybe you can move all OGC files to a non-free package? (Of course no
> package in main may depend on it ...)

If the OGC Software Notice is also considered non-free by DFSG
standards, or if the tests are not to be considered to fall under the
OGC Sofware Notice, I have little choice but to target (parts of)
TinyOWS for non-free.

>   Thorsten

Kind Regards,


GnuPG: 0xE88D4AF1 (new) / 0x77A975AD (old)

More information about the Pkg-grass-devel mailing list