Hi Johan, On 11/19/2014 10:08 PM, Johan Van de Wauw wrote: > 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.
Regarding the above, and what you wrote on #osgeo-live: 23:09 < johanvdw> I actually talked about it with Bart Delathouwer from OGC 23:09 < johanvdw> just earlier today 23:10 < johanvdw> I'll try to convince the ftp-masters that it can fall under DFSG 4 exemption 23:10 < johanvdw> In the mean time upload to non-free Do know if Bart is planning to come to FOSDEM? I would love to have a face to face conversation about the OGC licensing and Debian. I asked around last year if any of the Geo people knew if any OGC folks were around, but it didn't seem to be the case. Kind Regards, Bas -- GPG Key ID: 4096R/E88D4AF1 Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1 _______________________________________________ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel