Re: [Fedora-packaging] License issue for all GIS related packages. [call for help]

[Tom Callaway]

On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 00:35 +0200, Balint Cristian wrote:
>     Pardon me if i mistake here, a _non_ lawyer point of view:
>  
>     Here arised in my mind that epsg tables ar not similar as PCI ID 
>  plain only database, a new entry in that database need certain 
>  certification and probaly very precise technical mesurments before it
>  can 
>  be validated and ratified. I dont think anyone can easy do this step, 
>  like just PCI-ID ones. EPSG asummed this task to collect cand
>  ertificate those 
>  constants and projections in the past. The process is not an easy one
>  as far 
>  I understanded, but this is only the technical side. That could be
>  olso the strong 
>  reason to not let those constants to be altered in some way.
>  
>      Please correct me if i mistakenly miss understood that EPSG
>  activity from 
>  tech point of view. Just wanted make some comment over certain value
>  of 
>  database.  
I think that there are several good parallels here, the most obvious
seems to be that of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL),
specifically section 4, which permits modification, but also describes
what you must do as the end result of modification.

Another good example is the Bitstream Font License. Bitstream wanted to
make their Fonts available for the Free Software community, and to
permit people to make derived fonts from Bitstream fonts, but they
didn't want people selling the fonts standalone, or referring to any
derived fonts as "Bitstream".

Here is their license, in its entirety:

======================

Copyright (c) 2003 by Bitstream, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Bitstream
Vera is a trademark of Bitstream, Inc. 

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of the fonts accompanying this license (“Fonts”) and associated
documentation files (the “Font Software”), to reproduce and distribute
the Font Software, including without limitation the rights to use, copy,
merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Font Software, and
to permit persons to whom the Font Software is furnished to do so,
subject to the following conditions: 

The above copyright and trademark notices and this permission notice
shall be included in all copies of one or more of the Font Software
typefaces.

The Font Software may be modified, altered, or added to, and in
particular the designs of glyphs or characters in the Fonts may be
modified and additional glyphs or characters may be added to the Fonts,
only if the fonts are renamed to names not containing either the words
“Bitstream” or the word “Vera”.

This License becomes null and void to the extent applicable to Fonts or
Font Software that has been modified and is distributed under the
“Bitstream Vera” names. 

The Font Software may be sold as part of a larger software package but
no copy of one or more of the Font Software typefaces may be sold by
itself. 

THE FONT SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF
COPYRIGHT, PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR OTHER RIGHT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
BITSTREAM OR THE GNOME FOUNDATION BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
OTHER LIABILITY, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR
OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE FONT
SOFTWARE OR FROM OTHER DEALINGS IN THE FONT SOFTWARE. 

Except as contained in this notice, the names of Gnome, the Gnome
Foundation, and Bitstream Inc., shall not be used in advertising or
otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Font
Software without prior written authorization from the Gnome Foundation
or Bitstream Inc., respectively. For further information, contact: fonts
at gnome dot org. 

======================

So, to sum it up, here's what we would like to see:

The license needs to permit people to create derived works of the EPSG
dataset. Simply because we cannot fathom any possible derived works does
not mean that the right should be withheld. This is at the very heart of
open source and free software. However, it is perfectly acceptable to
say that those derived works may not call themselves the EPSG dataset.

If we can get that, we can include the EPSG dataset in Fedora. :)

~spot

License issue for all GIS related packages. [call for help]

[Balint Cristian]

>  ======================
>  
>  So, to sum it up, here's what we would like to see:
>  
>  The license needs to permit people to create derived works of the EPSG
>  dataset. Simply because we cannot fathom any possible derived works does
>  not mean that the right should be withheld. This is at the very heart of
>  open source and free software. However, it is perfectly acceptable to
>  say that those derived works may not call themselves the EPSG dataset. 
 Yes I agree. Understood here.

   However to be bad a bit, i really look forward for someone who can invent a 
new projection for his own pospose :-) Maybe. It will be never used by no one,
not even for survey the back yard garden :) Maybe bottom of my aquarium ?
  it wouldn be serious one at all.
   But than, e.g if i invent one wich i think fit perfect  for some land i will look
 forward anyway for someone's help to  certificate at all it, since i will not be able

to claim it is functional and better and more precise than i dont know wich one 
particulary. And if its about certificate it probably i go EPSG to help me out.
  Maybe its similar with encryption algorithms, where olso is pretty difficult
to come out these days with a new one, and claim its performance and usability
in some ways. I still can use my early high scool one invented  
"reverse mixing of ABC letters" TM at all, but probably  just for send out mail
to my 
girlfriend  :-D

   Just my +.5 cent opinion, i still think here is very low interest to alter EPSG and 
make derivative work out of it. It see total nonsense in real world.


>  
>  If we can get that, we can include the EPSG dataset in Fedora. :) 
Would be great !

>  ~spot
>  
>  
>   


-- 
Balint Cristian (Red Hat Release Engineering Team)

License issue for all GIS related packages. [call for help]

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 01:27:19AM +0200, Balint Cristian wrote:
>   
>  > ======================
>  > 
>  > So, to sum it up, here's what we would like to see:
>  > 
>  > The license needs to permit people to create derived works of the EPSG
>  > dataset. Simply because we cannot fathom any possible derived works does
>  > not mean that the right should be withheld. This is at the very heart of
>  > open source and free software. However, it is perfectly acceptable to
>  > say that those derived works may not call themselves the EPSG dataset.
>  
>   Yes I agree. Understood here.
>  
>     However to be bad a bit, i really look forward for someone who can invent a 
>  new projection for his own pospose :-) Maybe. It will be never used by no one,
>  not even for survey the back yard garden :) Maybe bottom of my aquarium ?
>    it wouldn be serious one at all. 
A projection would be an application of the data, not a modification
of this data.

And the EPSG data aren't the holy grail either, there is more precise
data available (non-free). Consider you being a company or some entity
that wants to refine the data for a certain part of the world, you
wouldn't have the right to do so.

I can think of tons of applications that would require
changing/refining the data. Even for changing the format and base
coordination system to adapt to computations for a given problem,
which semantically would not modify the data, but technically it does
and could be violating the license again (I haven't read the license,
just infering from what this thread is discussing).

>     But than, e.g if i invent one wich i think fit perfect  for some
> land i will look
>   forward anyway for someone's help to  certificate at all it, since i will not be
> able 
>  to claim it is functional and better and more precise than i dont know wich one 
>  particulary. And if its about certificate it probably i go EPSG to help me out. 
Or maybe a competing entity that will have emerged. And with a
non-free dataset you would be bound to the rights holder.

>    Maybe its similar with encryption algorithms, where olso is pretty
> difficult
>  to come out these days with a new one, and claim its performance and usability
>  in some ways. I still can use my early high scool one invented  
>  "reverse mixing of ABC letters" TM at all, but probably  just for send out mail
> to my 
>  girlfriend  :-D
>  
>     Just my +.5 cent opinion, i still think here is very low interest to alter EPSG and 
>  make derivative work out of it. It see total nonsense in real world.
>  
>  
>  > 
>  > If we can get that, we can include the EPSG dataset in Fedora. :)
>  
>  Would be great !
>  
>  > ~spot
>  > 
>  > 
>  > 
>  
>  
>   




-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net