[IPT] IPT Open source License

Fri Feb 13 11:55:57 CET 2009

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 at africamuseum.be
http://www.africamuseum.be/research/cooperation

-----Original Message-----
From: "Markus Döring (GBIF)" [mailto:mdoering at gbif.org] 
Sent: vendredi 13 février 2009 10:53
To: Beach, James H
Cc: Mergen Patricia; ipt at 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 at africamuseum.be]
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:49 PM
> To: Bob Morris; Beach, James H
> Cc: ipt at lists.gbif.org; ram at 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=61&
> Itemid=68
> If it can be of any help ...
>
> Best regards
>
> Pat
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipt-bounces at lists.gbif.org on behalf of Bob Morris
> Sent: Thu 22/01/2009 23:27
> To: Beach, James H
> Cc: ipt at lists.gbif.org; ram at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Evaluation_FlashMapping.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 72192 bytes
Desc: Evaluation_FlashMapping.xls
Url : http://lists.gbif.org/pipermail/ipt/attachments/20090213/9dbcfbf1/attachment-0001.xls 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: D1.6.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 642048 bytes
Desc: D1.6.doc
Url : http://lists.gbif.org/pipermail/ipt/attachments/20090213/9dbcfbf1/attachment-0002.doc 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: documentation_FlashMapping.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 322048 bytes
Desc: documentation_FlashMapping.doc
Url : http://lists.gbif.org/pipermail/ipt/attachments/20090213/9dbcfbf1/attachment-0003.doc 