That is perfect Jachym; at least for the beta website the "quick review" is the very few edit permissions we have handed out. I like how this discussion is covering what we should consider for listing "other" (or "foss4g") projects in the future.
One of the coolest things I saw at the conference was a spreadsheet of open source spatial projects that Angelos had. It outlined and visualized several hundred open source spatial projects (most of which I had never heard of). -- Jody Garnett On 21 August 2017 at 07:28, Jachym Cepicky <jachym.cepi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > just noting: there can be currently "Community projects" and "Other > projects" on the new OSGeo web page > > I agree, being "official OSGeo Community projects" requires some rules and > approval process > > IMHO the "new proposed rules" are ok, if you want just your project appear > on OSGeo Web page as "other project", it still should be peer-reviewed by > some of the page administrators, but that would not make you to community > project > > example: Yesterday I add Gisquick to new OSGeo web page > http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/projects/gisquick/ it should be listed > among "Other projects", not community > > hope, it's ok? > > J > > > > ne 20. 8. 2017 v 1:07 odesÃlatel James Klassen <klassen...@gmail.com> > napsal: > >> I generally agree with Even's comments. >> >> W.r.t. Not requireing other licenses clause, I would like to add a >> question about how this would apply to free software that is mostly >> intended to operate with non-free data? e.g. GDAL drivers that enable >> reading proprietary formats via a vendor SDK or formats that tend to only >> be used with strictly licensed data or reading data from non-open standards >> based web services (where you only control the client but the client is >> pointless without a running server which requires its own separate license). >> >> On Aug 19, 2017 08:40, "Even Rouault" <even.roua...@spatialys.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Angelos, >>> >>> >>> >>> thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and >>> your proposal sounds good to me. A few comments below. >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> > I would like to propose a way forward: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated with >>> OSGeo >>> >>> > (as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse) >>> >>> >>> >>> Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are >>> somewhat responsible for it, so you must ensure that it meets some minimum >>> criteria that are in the "OSGeo spirit" >>> >>> >>> >>> > A proposal for *new* rules: >>> >>> >>> >>> > * Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the web >>> in a >>> >>> > public place. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is >>> released with an OSI or FSF approved license and is available on the web in >>> a public place." >>> >>> >>> >>> I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only as >>> binaries, which makes it not very convenient to modify :-) >>> >>> >>> >>> > * Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require another >>> >>> > license to really use it >>> >>> >>> >>> Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't see >>> this criterion mentioned in >>> >>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html >>> >>> >>> >>> That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this, that >>> would for example exclude a Windows executable, since to use it you must >>> own a Windows license... Even if you take a Linux executable that is X/MIT >>> licensed, it links against the GNU libc that is GPL licensed (but as GNU >>> libc is considered part of the OS, there's a provision in the GPL license >>> to not apply the GPL obligations to the code that links to it). Or if you >>> take a Java program, it must run within a JVM that comes with its own >>> license. Same for Python, etc... >>> >>> >>> >>> But beyond this nitpicking, that criterion can raise more fundamental >>> debates: >>> >>> * is the intent to exclude projects that would be open-source released >>> plugins of a proprietary software for example (the plugin could be an >>> exporter from proprietary formats/projects to open source ones for example) >>> ? >>> >>> * Or open-source released projects that would connect to a proprietary >>> server (just saw in LWN headlines that Debian is currently debating whether >>> they should allow OSS software that connect to proprietary services) ? >>> >>> * What about a fully open-source project that connects to a proprietary >>> service ? >>> >>> >>> >>> If I take the exemple of GDAL, the following situations can be found: >>> >>> * it is X/MIT licensed but can link to a few GPL licensed lib (poppler, >>> GRASS, ...) >>> >>> * it can link to proprietrary licensed libs >>> >>> * it can interact with proprietary services that have a public API, but >>> don't require linking against proprietary code >>> >>> * other/most parts are fully useful on their own >>> >>> >>> >>> So I think this question alone could deserve its own thread. >>> >>> >>> >>> > The project should need to officially apply for being included as OSGeo >>> >>> > Community Project, by answering a questionnaire (including information >>> >>> > gathering for the web site and provide a point of contact for >>> maintaining >>> >>> > that information in the future) >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> Relation question: if OSGeo website promotes a community project, should >>> the website of this project (or github page if no dedicated website) links >>> to OSGeo one ? I'm not even sure this is a requirement for a graduated >>> project. >>> >>> >>> >>> Even >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services >>> >>> http://www.spatialys.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss