Difference between revisions of "OGC XML Schemas and FOSS4G Software Distribution"

From OSGeo
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
=Background=
 
=Background=
 +
 +
Blogpost: http://www.how2map.com/2015/02/a-good-test-for-ogc-and-osgeo.html
  
 
Discussion on OSGeo-Standards mailing list: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OGC-XML-schemas-and-FOSS4G-software-distribution-td5186023.html
 
Discussion on OSGeo-Standards mailing list: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OGC-XML-schemas-and-FOSS4G-software-distribution-td5186023.html
 +
 +
This issue is not new, however was raised in the OSGeo Standards mailing list as a result of the [https://github.com/geopython/pycsw/wiki/Project-Graduation-Checklist#copyright-and-license pycsw Incubation process]
  
 
==Problem Statement==
 
==Problem Statement==
  
−
FOSS4G software may encounter distribution issues when including OGC Schemas as part of the codebase.
+
FOSS4G software may encounter distribution issues when including [http://schemas.opengis.net OGC Schemas] as part of the codebase.
  
−
=Use of OGC XML Schemas in FOSS4G Implementations=
+
==Use of OGC XML Schemas in FOSS4G Implementations==
  
 
* used to re-publish schemas:
 
* used to re-publish schemas:
 
** XML responses cite <code>xsi:schemaLocation</code> of pointing to locally cached OGC schemas
 
** XML responses cite <code>xsi:schemaLocation</code> of pointing to locally cached OGC schemas
 
*** e.g. <code>xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.opengis.net/cat/csw/2.0.2 http://HOST/csw/2.0.2/CSW-discovery.xsd"></code>
 
*** e.g. <code>xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.opengis.net/cat/csw/2.0.2 http://HOST/csw/2.0.2/CSW-discovery.xsd"></code>
−
* used to validate XML based HTTP requests
+
* used within software to perform XML schema validity of XML based HTTP requests
 +
* others?
 +
 
 +
=Distribution=
 +
 
 +
==Debian==
 +
 
 +
Examples of rejection by Debian:
 +
* pycsw: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2014-November/024520.html
 +
* TinyOWS: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2014-January/017321.html
 +
 
 +
For clarification of the problems the Debian project has with the OGC Document & Software Notice terms see:
 +
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/2015-February/000842.html and the links referred to in that message.
  
 
=Current Text=
 
=Current Text=
 +
 +
Per http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/legalfaq#DTD, paragraph 5.10:
 +
 +
<pre>Schemas (and DTDs) are frequently part of our specifications and seemingly fall under
 +
the document copyright terms. However, as long as you do not use the same formal namespace
 +
or public identifier to identify that modified OGC schema/DTD (which might confuse
 +
applications), you may treat the schema/DTD under the software terms. This means that you
 +
are permitted to make a derivative or modified OGC schema/DTD, but even under the software
 +
terms you are obligated to include/retain the OGC copyright notice. We further appreciate a
 +
couple sentences regarding who made the modifications, when, and what changes were made in
 +
the original DTD -- a common software documentation practice.</pre>
 +
 +
Document terms: http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/document
 +
 +
Software terms: http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/software
  
 
=Proposed Text=
 
=Proposed Text=
 +
 +
<pre>Schemas (and DTDs) are frequently part of our specifications and seemingly fall under the
 +
document copyright terms.
 +
 +
Applications may use the schema/DTD for under the software license. We ask that care be taken
 +
when making a derivative or modified schema/DTD to preserve interoperability.
 +
 +
As an example a schema/DTD used for internal validation may be modified to validate additional
 +
optional vendor options without affecting interoperability. This has no impact on interoperability
 +
between applications and the resulting schema/DTD remains embedded in the application.
 +
 +
If publishing a modified schema/DTD it no longer qualifies as an OGC schema/DTD and we ask
 +
that a unique formal namespace or public identifier be used to prevent application confusion.
 +
This request is based on the restrictions of XML technology rather than a license restriction.
 +
 +
When using the software terms you are obligated to include/retain the OGC copyright notice. We
 +
further appreciate a couple sentences regarding who made the modifications, when, and what
 +
changes were made in the original DTD -- a common software documentation practice.</pre>
 +
 +
[[Category:Standards]]

Latest revision as of 17:34, 16 February 2015

Background

Blogpost: http://www.how2map.com/2015/02/a-good-test-for-ogc-and-osgeo.html

Discussion on OSGeo-Standards mailing list: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/OGC-XML-schemas-and-FOSS4G-software-distribution-td5186023.html

This issue is not new, however was raised in the OSGeo Standards mailing list as a result of the pycsw Incubation process

Problem Statement

FOSS4G software may encounter distribution issues when including OGC Schemas as part of the codebase.

Use of OGC XML Schemas in FOSS4G Implementations

Distribution

Debian

Examples of rejection by Debian:

For clarification of the problems the Debian project has with the OGC Document & Software Notice terms see: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/2015-February/000842.html and the links referred to in that message.

Current Text

Per http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/legalfaq#DTD, paragraph 5.10: 

Schemas (and DTDs) are frequently part of our specifications and seemingly fall under
the document copyright terms. However, as long as you do not use the same formal namespace
or public identifier to identify that modified OGC schema/DTD (which might confuse
applications), you may treat the schema/DTD under the software terms. This means that you
are permitted to make a derivative or modified OGC schema/DTD, but even under the software
terms you are obligated to include/retain the OGC copyright notice. We further appreciate a
couple sentences regarding who made the modifications, when, and what changes were made in
the original DTD -- a common software documentation practice.

Document terms: http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/document

Software terms: http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/software

Proposed Text

Schemas (and DTDs) are frequently part of our specifications and seemingly fall under the
document copyright terms.

Applications may use the schema/DTD for under the software license. We ask that care be taken
when making a derivative or modified schema/DTD to preserve interoperability.

As an example a schema/DTD used for internal validation may be modified to validate additional
optional vendor options without affecting interoperability. This has no impact on interoperability
between applications and the resulting schema/DTD remains embedded in the application.

If publishing a modified schema/DTD it no longer qualifies as an OGC schema/DTD and we ask
that a unique formal namespace or public identifier be used to prevent application confusion.
This request is based on the restrictions of XML technology rather than a license restriction.

When using the software terms you are obligated to include/retain the OGC copyright notice. We
further appreciate a couple sentences regarding who made the modifications, when, and what
changes were made in the original DTD -- a common software documentation practice.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.osgeo.org/w/index.php?title=OGC_XML_Schemas_and_FOSS4G_Software_Distribution&oldid=81776"