Re: [OSGeo-Board] Bylaws posted

Posted by Daniel on Mar 02, 2006; 6:31pm
URL: http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/Re-OSGeo-Board-Bylaws-posted-tp309p325.html

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
>