<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<p>Le 21/05/2018 à 17:49, Howard Butler a écrit :</p>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e89f88ec-a252-c390-31ee-123980e04467@hobu.co">
<p wrap="">Sticky philosophical issues aside, from a practical
standpoint, an industry that wants late-binding out of the
GDAL/PROJ/Friends stack must
recognize that the dictionaries are a critical piece of
infrastructure
to make it all work. EPSG's licensing approach seems to me like
good
intentions mixed with inexperience in open software licensing.
It would
be instructive to explicitly hear what EPSG was trying to
prevent with
its licensing approach rather than trying to legal wrangle their
license
without the context.
</p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify">This topic has been discussed (in a wider context
- not specifically EPSG) in the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC).
They came with the definition of Open Standard, which is similar
to Open Source Software but not identical. The OGC API white paper
[1] defines an Open Standard as:</p>
<ol>
<li>Freely and publicly available – They are available free of
charge and unencumbered by patents and other intellectual
property.</li>
<li>Non discriminatory – They are available to anyone, any
organization, any time, anywhere with no restrictions.</li>
<li>No license fees - There are no charges at any time for their
use.</li>
<li>Vendor neutral - They are vendor neutral in terms of their
content and implementation concept and do not favor any vendor
over another.</li>
<li>Data neutral – The standards are independent of any data
storage model or format.</li>
<li>Defined, documented, and approved by a formal, member driven
consensus process. The consensus group remains in charge of
changes and no single entity controls the standard.<br>
</li>
</ol>
<p align="justify">Note that above definitions does not include the
right to modify the standard; the changes are controlled by a
standard body. The reason is that if anyone was allowed to change
a standard, then it would not be a standard any more. Note that
this definition of "Open Standard" has been done collaboratively
with OSGeo [2].</p>
<p align="justify">So I think that IOGP sees the EPSG dataset as
something closer (but not fully compliant) to Open Standard than
Open Source. I had a chance to discuss with Roger Lott (an EPSG
maintainer) during various OGC meetings, and my understanding is
that their main concern is to make sure that everyone interpret
EPSG codes in the same way. I mean that coordinate operations
performed between the same pairs of EPSG codes shall produce the
same results (up to the accuracy allowed by the operation) with
any standard-compliant software.<br>
</p>
<p> Martin<br>
</p>
<pre>[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://docs.opengeospatial.org/wp/16-019r4/16-019r4.html#_open_standards_and_apis">http://docs.opengeospatial.org/wp/16-019r4/16-019r4.html#_open_standards_and_apis</a>
[2] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Open_Source_and_Open_Standards#Open_Standards">https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Open_Source_and_Open_Standards#Open_Standards</a>
</pre>
</body>
</html>