OGC schemas, licensing & non-free [Was: pycsw_1.10.0+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED]

Sebastiaan Couwenberg sebastic at xs4all.nl
Fri Nov 28 16:24:31 UTC 2014

Hi Johan,

On 11/19/2014 10:08 PM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
> Just for clarity, pycsw only contains the schemas, and not the
> testcases mentioned for tinyOWS.
> I would like to point out that regarding these schemas there is
> actually no difference between the licenses used by W3C and OGC (apart
> from the copyrightholders). Indeed, the OGC software license [2] is
> identical to the W3C license [3] (OSGI approved [4]).
> The document license for OGC [5] is again identical to the document
> license for W3C [6]. W3C schemas (eg xml.xsd) are used by *many*
> debian packages. Is there an exemption in W3C which I missed (and
> which we could suggest to OGC), or is there a more general problem
> here? I think standards are one of the cases where I find the DFSG #4
> exemption is defendable.

Regarding the above, and what you wrote on #osgeo-live:

23:09 < johanvdw> I actually talked about it with Bart Delathouwer from OGC
23:09 < johanvdw> just earlier today
23:10 < johanvdw> I'll try to convince the ftp-masters that it can fall
under DFSG 4 exemption
23:10 < johanvdw> In the mean time upload to non-free

Do know if Bart is planning to come to FOSDEM? I would love to have a
face to face conversation about the OGC licensing and Debian. I asked
around last year if any of the Geo people knew if any OGC folks were
around, but it didn't seem to be the case.

Kind Regards,


 GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146  50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1

More information about the Pkg-grass-devel mailing list