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

[Sebastiaan Couwenberg]

On 11/28/2014 10:14 PM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg
> <sebastic at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I'll invite him, but I don't know what his plans are. At least he
> knows since yesterday that we are organizing this track. For the
> record, he likes tinkering
> with debian on this raspberry pi - you have conversation starter :-)

I'd skip the smalltalk and get straight to the point, asking about his
views on the OGC {Document,Software} Notice vs DFSG issues. And if he
could join the thread and state the OGC position to the FTP masters.

> Anyway: it will be hard to convince him that it is useful to allow
> modifications of the XSD's ("Why on earth would you want to do that").
> And I actually think that the license exemption in the their FAQ
> allowing it given that you use a different namespace is not
> unreasonable, and very close to DFSG #4 exemption.

I also think that limiting modification for the OGC schemas is not
unreasonable in the context of standards. Allowing modification would
just make it easier to include the software in Debian.

> If we propose a wording to OGC which both covers their concerns (don't
> just change an XSD and distritbute it as if it is the original
> standard) and which is acceptable to the FTP masters, I think OGC may
> confirm this interpretation.
> 
> For me the ball is in their (FTP-masters) camp.

I'm also waiting for a reply from FTP master regarding the OGC schemas.
But please note that I removed FTP masters from the recipients of this
subthread.

> If I read the original mail for tinyows [1] they have a few concerns:
> 1) questions whether the Software license is DFSG free
> 
> I think the correct answer is it is free. At least according to OSI
> and Fedora it is. It is used by many other packages in debian (as the
> W3C software license).

I also think the OGC Software Notice complies with the DFSG, but only
the FTP masters can give a final word on that.

> 2) Whether the license FAQ is really part of the license:
> 
> I think it clearly is, it is linked from the page and mentioned in the
> license. Question: Do the FTP-master agree? Do we need a seperate
> statement from OGC that it really is part of the license?

To clarify these questions I'd love for someone from OGC to join the
conversation with the FTP masters.

I also think that the license FAQ clearly confirms that the OGC schemas
are licensed under the terms of the OGC Software Notice.

> The first sentence says that schemas are covered by the Document
> Notice (= no modifications allowed = non-free). Only if you use a
> different namespace, you may apply the Software Notice and do
> modifications. I think this is against DFSG#3 and not covered by the
> compromise in DFSG#4.
> "
> "I think" is not a clear signal here. Can we get a clear answer from
> the FRP masters? If it is not covered by the compromise, can the FTP
> masters suggest a wording that would be covered by the exemption? So
> we can propose it to OGC?

If we can get Thorsten Alteholz and Bart Delathouwer together at FOSDEM
we could have this conversation in person. It may speed up the process.

Kind Regards,

Bas

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