Re: [OSGeo-Board] Bylaws posted
Locked
Re: [OSGeo-Board] Bylaws posted
 
|
Hello,
I'm sorry for cross-posting, but in this way, I'm at least sure to reach everybody ;-) Unfortunately, I'm overbooked theses times, but existing summaries of the PGL "why and how" could be found on http://sig.cwriter.org/index.php (mainly in french, but with an english translation of the license). You can also find many interesting stuff in the PGL-Canada site: http://cemml.carleton.ca:8080/OGUG/pgl (the OGUG set up an english website for collaborative work upon PGL: contributing is still in my huge to-do list ;-) ) Hope that will help. Discussion about the license itself: The main ideas when writing the PGL (Public Geodata License) was to: 1) reproduce the success of free software with free geodata. So we choose to adapt a GPL-like license. 2) take care of the specificity of geodata, by specific obligations upon metadata and traçability. To make this easy, the PGL doesn't define metadata and traçability formats: it just make them mandatories. Some other licenses could be used for geodata (creative commons, ...), but none of them really take care of the importance of traçability and metadata. So I still think that the PGL project may be the right basis for free geodata. Note about the choice of a "GPL-like" license: This point was discussed: e.g. , some peoples prefer licenses like the BSD one. For me, it's very important to ensure contributors that their work will remain free in the future. I strongly think it's a great asset to gain more and more contributors for free geodata projects. Todo list: many work remain necessary to popularize and extend the idea of such a free license: translations, explanations, presentations ... Key peoples in free geodata projects (like openstreetmap) should play a very important role, by showing the way for future licensing models. Do not forget these two assets: 1) metadata 2) traçability Best regards, Daniel FAIVRE Arnulf Christl a écrit : > Gary Lang wrote: > >> This is a great discussion. >> >> My $0.02. >> >> If it turns out to be really necessary, developing an OSGeo-authored >> license for data could be a good thing for the foundation to sponsor and >> accomplish. If not, using an existing license would be good karma as >> well. >> >> Either way, I feel that if we aren't successful with this, we're >> probably not going to be successful on some other level with this >> adventure. >> >> Can someone summarize the "why" of the PGL? >> >> Gary > > > Probably this would best be done by Jo Walsh, Markus Neteler and the > Public Geodata Committee. I would suggest to additionally invite > Daniel Faivre to this committe as he is active promoter of the PGL. > > Best regards, > Arnulf. > > PS: > Jo, Daniel, you might not be able to reply to this board address as it > is a closed list, but I am sure that Markus Neteler will be in contact > with you anyway. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Arnulf Christl (CCGIS) [mailto:***@ccgis.de] Sent: Thursday, >> February 23, 2006 12:15 PM >> >> [...] >> >>> "article I: talks only about software and OSI licenses, do we want >>> to mention data/education as well (CC licenses etc)?" >>> >>> The mission statement at the beginning of article I does refer to data >> >> >> >>> and broadly refers to the advancement of open geospatial, so I think >>> that would pick up education initiatives as well ("The purposes of the >> >> >> >>> corporation are to establish and support a diverse open source >>> community to foster the development, advancement and promotion of open >> >> >> >>> geospatial software technology and data"). I haven't given any >>> thought to whether the bylaws would/should require the use of a >>> particular license for data. Certainly with software it is easy to >>> look to the OSI. Is there a similar certifying body for >>> data/content licenses? I'm familiar with CC, but do we want to >>> state definitively in the bylaws that things must be licensed under CC? >> >> >> >> Spatial data is somewhat special in this respect. I talked to Jimmy >> Wales Richard Stallman they think GNU FDL is good. Ward Cunningham is >> into CC, and says its cool for spatial data too obviously. >> >> I am not sure though. Daniel Faivre (camptocamp) is very actively >> promoting a license specially designed to fit spatial data backed by an >> active Canadian group, they call it PGL. I believe Jo has something up >> the sleeve too and OSM is also thinking in this line. All of them are >> highly interested in the OSGeo (well, dunno about OSM, they are sort of >> sleepy) and it might happen that the Foundation itself will be the body >> creating this special license. In the end this is one of the things that >> we came together to do here. What I want to say is that we do not have >> to choose from different licenses but maybe set out to create one. >> >> Best regards, >> Arnulf. >> >> -- >> Arnulf Christl >> http://www.ccgis.de > |
daniel.faivre.vcf (323 bytes)
Re: [OSGeo-Board] Bylaws posted
|
|
Re: [OSGeo-Board] Bylaws posted
|
|
Re: [OSGeo-Board] Bylaws posted
|
|
Such debates are actually very hot in France too for music and video, as
our government want to set by law DRM strong control by the mean of proprietary software and "boxes", completed by a strong repressive law (DADvSI - see http://www.odebi.org for more information). Worldwide, OGC works on a DRM spec. We do not want to initiate another "troll-war" upon geodata ! ;-) But geodata needs to be accurate. So it needs metadata, and changelog (what i've called "traçability"). The main idea of the PGL is to protect both users and producers on accuracy issues, by the mean of metadata and changelogs. This main idea could be transposed to GPL-like licenses, such the PGL, or to BSD-style licenses too. PGL is not mandatory in any way, for any producer/distributor/contributor. But it may be an asset for "massive-cooperative GIS", doesn't it ? Anyway, the GPL was such an asset for software. Yours, dF Russell McOrmond a écrit : > Daniel wrote: > >> The main ideas when writing the PGL (Public Geodata License) was to: >> 1) reproduce the success of free software with free geodata. So we >> choose to adapt a GPL-like license. > > > I assume by this you mean the "Share and Share alike" aspects, also > known as "CopyLeft". > > I am wondering how hard it has been to get community buy-in for > these clauses, and how much of a push there was for > non-Copyleft/non-Sharealike terms (IE: BSD-style ). > > > I ask this as there is considerable misinformation about these > concepts, with some of the incumbents in this field using incompatible > meanings of the term "CopyLeft" to create FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and > Doubt) about Copyleft/ShareAlike clauses by falsely attributing them > to anti-creator ideologies. I believe there will be considerable > push-back from policy people on these types of clauses because of the > FUD they have been receiving. > > I believe this will make it just that much harder to get civic > information out of governments in a way that is both fully > collaborative (peer production, peer distribution) but that also isn't > seen as subsidizing the private sector. ShareAlike clauses are the > ideal solution to this, if ideology doesn't stand in the way. > > > Canadian Example of the problems in the debate: > > Repositioning Creators’ Rights In The Digital World > http://creatorscopyright.ca/documents/crean-jones/rcridw.html > > Susan Crean is the co-president of the "Creators Rights Alliance", > while Virginia Jones is a lawyer for Access Copyright, an old-media > publisher dominated collective society. I've debated both in various > public events. http://www.flora.ca/creators/ > http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/1061 > > > In this document they have redefined "CopyLeft", creating a new term > "copyleftists": > > "Copyleft was the result, dubbed in counter distinction to copyright > owners, or content providers, who are variously characterized as > Copyright Maximalists, Copyright warriors, and dinosaurs." > > > The "CopyLeft" movement is actually a creators' right movement, > started by and for authors and other creators. We just happen to have > policy opinions different from the incumbent "copyright holder" groups > as to what the threats to creators' rights are, and what the remedies > need to be. > > The two branches of the creators' rights movement. > http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/1963 > |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |