Ok by the way the colleagues from the Cascadoss project I sent the e-mail earlier have a very good evaluation procedure for Open source software that is recognized by the EU.
It is more for GIS software but a lot is generic for OSS and just the specifically GIS criteria would need to be adapted. They said as long as we keep them informed and cite the project properly we can use if it is relevant for our projects their procedures and adapt them.
I attach the documents. We have already approached EDIT and STERNA if they want to use it for their deliverables on evaluation of the results of the products.
We found it rather interesting, criteria very well adapted to OSS and also less heavy to implement than a real certification procedure
It is also very useful to pinpoint strength and weaknesses in a OSS development or implementation project and to see the changes and enhancement from version to version ...
Let me know if you think this could be also something interesting to use in the GBIF or TDWG "compliant" software ?
Typically in criteria where it says compatible with WMS, OGC and so on we can put criteria adapted to the software domain like TDWG standards, Digital libraries, CDM ...
Thanks in advance
Pat
Patricia Mergen Project Manager Biodiversity Information and Cybertaxonomy Unit Royal Museum for Central Africa Leuvensesteenweg 13 B-3080 Tervuren Phone:+ 32 2 769 56 26 Fax: + 32 2 769 56 42 E-mail: patricia.mergen@africamuseum.be http://www.africamuseum.be/research/cooperation
-----Original Message----- From: "Markus Döring (GBIF)" [mailto:mdoering@gbif.org] Sent: vendredi 13 février 2009 10:53 To: Beach, James H Cc: Mergen Patricia; ipt@lists.gbif.org; Robert A. Morris Subject: Re: [IPT] IPT Open source License
Thanks Pat, the MPL was a quick "legacy choice" and we are currently investigating different options. Best bet so far seems the Apache 2.0 or MIT license, both widely used, GPL compliant and allowing commercial use. Markus
On Feb 12, 2009, at 22:57, Beach, James H wrote:
Many thanks Pat,
I am going to dig right into this.
Happy Darwin's Birthday!
Jim B.
James H. Beach Biodiversity Institute University of Kansas 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence, KS 66045, USA T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335
No engagement = No commitment.
-----Original Message----- From: Mergen Patricia [mailto:patricia.mergen@africamuseum.be] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:49 PM To: Bob Morris; Beach, James H Cc: ipt@lists.gbif.org; ram@cs.umb.edu Subject: RE: [IPT] IPT Open source License
This project has made a quiet nice and recent review on the different open Source Licences with pro and cons http://www.cascadoss.eu/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id... Itemid=68 If it can be of any help ...
Best regards
Pat
-----Original Message----- From: ipt-bounces@lists.gbif.org on behalf of Bob Morris Sent: Thu 22/01/2009 23:27 To: Beach, James H Cc: ipt@lists.gbif.org; ram@cs.umb.edu Subject: Re: [IPT] IPT Open source License
I can't.
I only have a few relevant(?) opinions:
- The main downside to viral licenses is usually that they discourage
corporations from wrapping the licensed code with something of theirs. For Specify, about all this is likely to mean is the kEmu can't adopt any Specify code. Is that bad? (You may want a strategy with separate services that make it easy for people to make connections to Specify servers without having to use Specify code though. This could be a small code base you isolate from Specify and license with a non-viral license, or just plain Web Services).
- A software IPR attorney I heard talk once said that FOSS licensing
is so tied up with U.S. IPR law, that most licenses are not very relevant or understandable overseas and present tremendous legal burdens to adoption and even acceptance by organizations that actually care what their license obligations are. She observed that the U.S. has 1000 times as many lawyers per capita as almost any other country in the world and reasoned that there are not enough anywhere outside the U.S. to advise most users of FOSS licenses. IMO, this favors simpler, better understood, widely used licenses over those that aren't all these things.
- Dual licensing may obviate some of these issues in that you could
fork different licenses from the unlicensed code base. This isn't ideal, because you'd have divergent code bases, whereas your development probably would take place in your most restrictive license (else why would you have it?) and so not be available in the other branches.
Bob
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Beach, James H beach@ku.edu wrote:
Could anyone comment on the choice of the Mozilla Public License for the IPT? I'm curious about which property made it the best choice.
I'm reviewing (for the third time) FOSS licenses for Specify 6, and am
going through the usual decision tree:
viral vs. non-viral
GPL compatible or not
and the various nuances of each license.
I noticed that IPT is parked on Google Code, and then discovered this.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/25/googlecode_bans_mpl/
many thanks,
Jim B.
James H. Beach Biodiversity Institute University of Kansas 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard Lawrence, KS 66045, USA T 785 864-4645, F 785 864-5335
No engagement = No commitment.
--
Robert A. Morris Professor of Computer Science UMASS-Boston ram@cs.umb.edu http://bdei.cs.umb.edu/ http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram/calendar.html phone (+1)617 287 6466 _______________________________________________ IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
###########################################
This message has been scanned by ICT - Africa Museum
12/2/2009 - Filtered through antispam by ICT
IPT mailing list IPT@lists.gbif.org http://lists.gbif.org/mailman/listinfo/ipt
###########################################
This message has been scanned by ICT - Africa Museum
________________________________________ 13/2/2009 - Filtered through antispam by ICT