pycsw_1.10.0+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Johan Van de Wauw]

Dear FTP masters,

Thanks for taking time to review pycsw.

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg
<sebastic at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> One result of the discussion about tinyows was that OGC schemas don't fall
>> under the Software Notice but the Document Notice. This makes them
>> non-free
>> (no modification) and tinyows had to move to non-free.
>> I am afraid that pycsw has to do this as well.
>
> That seems to be the wrong way around.
>
> The OGC schemas fall under the Software Notice as documented in the OGC
> LegalFAQ [1], the testcases appear to fall under the Document Notices
> (although the CITE test may have a different license than Document or
> Software Notice, I've never received feedback from OGC on my questions).

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.

Kind Regards,
Johan

[1] http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/legalfaq#Software
[2] http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/software
[3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
[4] http://opensource.org/licenses/W3C.php
[5] http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/document
[6] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231