Cameron, I’ll stay away from the legal opinions of open source - this is really outside my domain!!!!
As to the Point Cloud Domain Working Group, we held the first official meeting of the group a few weeks ago in Nottingham. A couple of good developments: 1. The elected chairs come from a diversity of experience (commercial and academia) and are not limited to LiDAR expertise; 2. The group is starting to develop a list of potential actions to pursue. A public wiki exists, but is only just now beginning to get populated. http://external.opengis.org/twiki_public/PointCloudDWG/WebHome <http://external.opengis.org/twiki_public/PointCloudDWG/WebHome> The group plans regular telecons - I’ll make sure to announce those to the OSGeo discussion list. Best Regards, Scott > On Oct 4, 2015, at 9:34 PM, Cameron Shorter <cameron.shor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Martin, > Based on your description below, it appears that Lewis Graham is using > deliberate technical obfuscation under the banner of ASPRS, which is > tarnishing the technical credibility of ASPRS. > > Oliver's detailed rebuttal is good, but is only valuable if a number of > people of influence who read and are swayed by the rebuttal. > > Roland, > I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on publishing a correction of facts, > as presented by Oliver (or similar)? > Further, in future, you might find it helpful to consult with experts in Open > Standards prior to publishing, in order to: > a. Correct facts before publishing, and hence provide a more credible > publication. We can put you in touch with appropriate experts. > b. Provide a balanced article, with different opinions. > Would you like us to help source contacts that you could call upon for an > opinion? > > Martin, > I hope we don't have to go as far as building upon our previous Open Letter, > which would effectively publicly discredit Lewis (again) and would tarnish > the reputation of Lewis/ASPRS and wouldn't look good for publications > presenting un-countered FUD. > > Scott, > I suspect the OGC might be interested in helping counter the FUD being > spread. Possibly by approaching offenders behind the scene and suggesting > they desist with the FUD, or by respectfully countering the FUD in public > forums. > > Martin, Scott, > I'd be interested to hear how the OGC Point Cloud working group has been > progressing. > Is positive progress being made? > (Feel free to point at a blog or web page or similar which might already have > such details). > > Warm regards, > Cameron Shorter > > > > On 3/10/2015 11:46 pm, Martin Isenburg wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I was hoping that Lewis Graham would see the futility of furthering his >> incorrect claims on the "dangers" of the LGPL license for commercial >> projects (and his other odd statements) but he continues to do so not just >> in private but also in his role as the Chair of the ASRPS LAS Working Group >> This gives his FUD non-sense a very prominent outlet in front of very >> influential people, so OSGeo should probably respond to this a bit more >> loudly than usual. >> >> In the "LiDAR Sidebar" at the ASPRS UAS Reno conference [1] there was a >> discussion on point cloud formats that was more or less a direct consequence >> of the "Open Letter" by OSGeo [2]. Lewis continued to claim that it was >> impossible to make LASzip an official format because I would be unwilling to >> donated it under an MIT license to the ASPRS (note: i do not even remember >> being asked) and that an LGPL would be impossible and "dangerous" for >> commercial companies to work with (note: nevermind the 55+ companies that >> already do [3]). >> >> So I emailed the participants (my dial-in connection was shakey) the >> following: >> >> "Here a detailed rebuttal of Lewis' "LGPL of Martin's LASzip implementation >> is dangerous" non-sense: >> http://odoepner.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/lidar-news-publishes-uninformed-gpl-rant/ >> >> <http://odoepner.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/lidar-news-publishes-uninformed-gpl-rant/> >> And yes, the currently available open LASzip format implementation (!!!) >> comes with a "static linking exception" because some new devices do not >> support dynamic linking well. Would be good to get someone to sponsor the >> creation of an open LASzip format specification (!!!) so anyone can >> reimplement it and give their resulting implementation whatever license they >> see best fit. A license is only attached to a particular implementation. >> From an open LASzip format specification anyone could write their own >> implementation (closed or open with any license they want)." >> >> To which Lewis answered (just repeating the same old FUD): >> >> "Rather than entering into an inane debate over licensing with Martin, I >> suggest anyone who is concerned check with their intellectual property >> attorney prior to incorporating third party software into internal build >> software, regardless of the license type of that third party software. We >> do a lot of software consulting and most of our more savvy clients clearly >> specify what type of licensing can be incorporated into the composite >> deliverables. >> >> I also suggest that the world of software development and deployment has >> become far too complex to continue to use the undefined term “open source.” >> For example, some customers have source code to the GeoCue production >> software under license. Is that Open Source? I suggest instead that we use >> terminology such as “binaries available under license XYZ” or “source >> suitable for compilation available under license ABX.”" >> >> I can not believe that Lewis himself actually believes his own statements >> but uses them tactically to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I am not >> sure why. Maybe in order to stall the standardization process of LAS and LAZ >> because he is somehow afraid it will loosen his grip onto the LAS format? >> >> Regards, >> >> Martin @rapidlasso >> >> [1] http://uasreno.org/2015/09/09/asprs-adds-lidar-sidebar-to-reno-program/ >> <http://uasreno.org/2015/09/09/asprs-adds-lidar-sidebar-to-reno-program/> >> [2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/LIDAR_Format_Letter >> <http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/LIDAR_Format_Letter> >> [3] http://laszip.org/#software-with-native-laz-support >> <http://laszip.org/#software-with-native-laz-support> >> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Martin Isenburg < >> <mailto:martin.isenb...@gmail.com>martin.isenb...@gmail.com >> <mailto:martin.isenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > We (Oliver and me) had contacted the (new) editor (Roland Mangold who is >> > cc-ed) last week and suggested to use the contents of this blog article >> > >> > http://odoepner.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/lidar-news-publishes-uninformed-gpl-rant/ >> > >> > <http://odoepner.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/lidar-news-publishes-uninformed-gpl-rant/> >> > >> > authored by Oliver Doepner as a factual rebuttal of Lewis Graham's FUD >> > rant on GPL/LGPL for publishing in the next issue of the LiDAR Magazine >> > (the two-month ago rebranded LiDAR News magazine). I have no final word >> > from the Roland yet but our communication suggested that this would >> > happen. Please check Oliver's column for any errors (should you care) so >> > he can correct them prior to this being published. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Martin @rapidlasso >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Jo Cook < >> > <mailto:joc...@astuntechnology.com>joc...@astuntechnology.com >> > <mailto:joc...@astuntechnology.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> I think this is something that we at OSGeo should definitely respond to. >> >> Perhaps we could contact the magazine and explain that there were some >> >> factual errors in the article, and ask for a chance to respond? >> >> >> >> Jo >> >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Johan Van de Wauw >> >> <johan.vandew...@gmail.com <mailto:johan.vandew...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Martin Isenburg >> >>> <martin.isenb...@gmail.com <mailto:martin.isenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > Another curious thing is that I (and the open source license LGPL) was >> >>> > attacked vehemently in a recent column called "Open Source Mania" by >> >>> > Lewis >> >>> > Graham that was published in the LiDAR News magazine. Viewer discretion >> >>> > advised and parental guidance suggested ... you will not like this FUD >> >>> > attack: >> >>> > >> >>> > http://www.lidarmag.com/PDF/LiDARNewsMagazine_Graham-OpenSourceMania_Vol5No4.pdf >> >>> > >> >>> > <http://www.lidarmag.com/PDF/LiDARNewsMagazine_Graham-OpenSourceMania_Vol5No4.pdf> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> I read the article and there are a lot of statements there which are >> >>> false. >> >>> " if you touch a piece of GPL code with the nine foot pole of >> >>> launching it with a Python script, that script must now be GPLed" >> >>> not true >> >>> >> >>> "Suppose you have developed some very, very clever algorithm on which >> >>> you and your university have applied for a patent. If you have coded >> >>> your algorithm and used any GPL whatsoever, you just GPLed your >> >>> patent. The patent rights effectively transfer to the Open Software >> >>> Foundation for free distribution." >> >>> >> >>> Completely untrue. The Open Software Foundation does not exist. You >> >>> don't transfer patent rights at all. A well known counter-example is >> >>> the algortihm for MP3, where the code (lame) was released under LGPL. >> >>> >> >>> I think as OSGeo we should reply to the statements, this is an attack >> >>> on our community. Perhaps we can ask someone from the Free Software >> >>> Foundation Europe to help write a response? >> >>> >> >>> Kind Regards, >> >>> Johan >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Discuss mailing list >> >>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org> >> >>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >>> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jo Cook >> >> Astun Technology Ltd, The Coach House, 17 West Street, Epsom, Surrey, >> >> KT18 7RL, UK >> >> t:+44 7930 524 155 >> >> iShare - Data integration and publishing platform >> >> >> >> ***************************************** >> >> >> >> Company registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales. >> >> Registered office: 120 Manor Green Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8LN VAT no. >> >> 864201149. >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Standards mailing list >> > standa...@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:standa...@lists.osgeo.org> >> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards >> > <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Standards mailing list >> standa...@lists.osgeo.org <mailto:standa...@lists.osgeo.org> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards >> <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards> > -- > Cameron Shorter, > Software and Data Solutions Manager > LISAsoft > Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf, > 26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009 > > P +61 2 9009 5000, W www.lisasoft.com <http://www.lisasoft.com/>, F +61 2 > 9009 5099
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
