[Viscom-dev] Re: [52N Security] 52°North posts new FAQs!

Committees Marketing
1

On Thu, March 29, 2007 11:48, Ann Hitchcock wrote:

Sorry for crosspostings.

52°North's new FAQs are now posted! Please see:
http://52north.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=70.

best regards,
Ann

Hi Ann,
I wondered whether to forward this mail and the link that you sent to
OSGeo Discuss to keep people up to date with repsect to 52N's activities
but maybe we should first continue this discussion in a smaller circle
until we have sorted out some of the issues. Please bear with me this is
nothing personal but I need somebody to talk to and now that you have sent
this mail I can grab the thread and go ahead.

Hi 52N,
I have some issues with how you use the terms "Open Source" and
"Commercial". The way you are using them conveys the connotation that the
GNU GPL cannot be used commercially and that "commercial users" (whatever
that may be) "must" use 52N services and related licenses to make good use
of the software. If I may cite from the GNU page:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCommercially

Mind me, all of this is *not* trivial. Just like anything else, it takes
time to digest the idea and wrap your business model around it. Here is
more food for thought:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

In the end it means that neither the Free Software concept nor the GNU GPL
license are anti-commercial so that your wording is misleading. As a
leading group of Open Source software projects and thus a prime source of
advocacy it would suit you well to have this issue corrected on the more
prominent of your web pages.

The word "...published solely under the GNU..." suggests "exclusively".
This implies that there is not other license involved. Don't get me wrong,
there is nothing wrong with having a dual license, but then please do not
emphasize that it is "solely" published under the GNU GPL. This kind of
wording is only good to raise the suspicion of Free Software advocates
(one of my less satisfying roles) and confuses the common user. To prevent
both from happening is part of OSGeo's integrative aims and awarness
building mission.

One last thing (that blends into commercial activities with respect to the
German FOSSGIS market) is the wording with respect to 52N. You keep on
talking of an "Open Source Initiative" but instead it is a perfectly
commercial undertaking of the German legal form GmbH (Gesellschaft mit
begrenzter Haftung). And you are talking of "products" instead of
"software projets". This mixing of Open Source projects with the
corresponding governance and openness do not go together well with the
interests of a commercial undertaking. Again, please do not get me wrong,
as I already said it is perfectly legal and morally and ethically correct
to earn money using Open Source and prociding services around it but it is
not OK to have commercial interests rule the governance of Open Source
projects.

This is one of the reasons why for example Autodesk shed their license
claims to OSGeo which is not a commercial undertaking but a non-profit
organization. As an aside - this is not really a problem for the Open
Source comunity but it will damage the perception of the software projects
contained within 52N. If they are perceived as being controlled by
commercial interests they will attract far less competent people than if
they were really Free and Open and legally unencumbered.

If you are interested in continuing this discussion - hopefuly without
raising yet another flame - I would be happy to follow up on any ideas
that you might have on this list or elsewhere.

As an aside to VisCom and WebCom: I am misusing this list for advocacy and
awareness building because afaik we do not have such place within OSGeo
yet. It might be a good idea to consider this when merging Web and Vis to
ComCom - is this still the place to do things like this or where should
that happen?

Sorry for the lengthy mail, I am sure others would have needed less words...

Best regards,
Arnulf Christl.

PS:
yet another one: From an Open and Free perspective Liberty Alliance is to
be eyed very critically, please refer to http://openliberty.org/ to note
the difference in aims and mission. One is highly (if not only)
commercially interestd, the other is about protecting privacy and the
people. Fine distinctions but they show.

--
Dipl.-Geogr. Ann Hitchcock
52°North Initiative for Geospatial Open Source Software GmbH
Martin-Luther-King-Weg 24
48155 Münster
Germany

Managing Director: Dr. Andreas Wytzisk
Amtsgericht Münster HRB 10849

Tel: +49 (0)251 7474 520
Fax: +49 (0)251 7474 530

email: hitchcock@52north.org
http://www.52north.org

_______________________________________________
Security mailing list
Security@52north.org
https://www.52north.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/security

--
Arnulf Christl
http://www.wheregroup.com

2

hi Arnulf,

thanks for your long cunstructiv mail! Just one question to complete :slight_smile: my FOSS-education:

Arnulf Christl wrote:

And you are talking of "products" instead of
"software projets". This mixing of Open Source projects with the
corresponding governance and openness do not go together well with the
interests of a commercial undertaking.

Aren't the results of OS-projects products? I'm often talking about the products MapServer, Mapbender etc., because for poeple thinking in product-boxes it is easier to understand, that we offer working software and not blabla.

Am I wrong?

Jörg

3

On Fri, March 30, 2007 12:18, "Jörg Thomsen (MapMedia GmbH)" wrote:

hi Arnulf,

thanks for your long cunstructiv mail! Just one question to complete :slight_smile:
my FOSS-education:

Hey Jörg,
if I wouldn't know you better I'd suspect that you want to show me up. :slight_smile:
So this will be my weekend tutorial.

Arnulf Christl wrote:

And you are talking of "products" instead of
"software projets". This mixing of Open Source projects with the
corresponding governance and openness do not go together well with the
interests of a commercial undertaking.

Aren't the results of OS-projects products?

Good question. I will try to answer without ranting and in less than 2kb.

I'm often talking about the
products MapServer, Mapbender etc., because for poeple thinking in
product-boxes it is easier to understand, that we offer working software
  and not blabla.

Am I wrong?

Jörg

You are right. When we sell things to ignorant people we have to talk of
products (only). But then we don't sell them the product but the services
around it. Isn't this the greatest irony?

I would therefore always want to differentiate between the "project" and
the "product", especially if talking with FOSS-enlightened people ((I
posted the question of what the definition/scope of a "project" is to
incubation several years back but they still owe us an answer)).

In my definition the "project" comprises the code, the community, the
mailing lists, governance, bug tracker, how decisions are taken, who is
allowed to submit code, the "vibe" of the community, etc. A "project" can
appear at an OSGeo booth at a trade fair or produce flyers for
conferences. People can join projects and might get kicked out of it. It
is a living thing run by people with no centralized, proprietary,
commercial interest overhead. People are not supposed to take things into
possession in a project (although in reality they oftentimes do and
struggle is required to resolve that). The Open Source "project" is
described in several books, an English language one is
http://producingoss.com/ by Carl Fogel. A more legally comprehensive and
less technical one in German language about Freie Weichware is
http://freie-software.bpb.de/ by Grassmuck (the Wizards of OS' bible).

In my definition the "product" is the code and binaries resulting from the
project, maybe with documentation. The "product" can be installed and put
to use by people. And you can copy binaries to a DVD, print docs out,
stuff both in a box and sell them. Try that with a project. :slight_smile:

Please bear in mind that this is only my humble definition and thank you
for putting me back down on the floor where I belong. I am by no means
entitled to police people how to run their Open Source projects but but
but yes I would like to nudge and kick them into doing it in ways that
much larger minds than mine have found out to be the right ones long ago.
Educate yourself, I can only rant.

Asbestos regardos,
Seven