Frank Warmerdam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080515]: > Landon Blake wrote: > >I thought it might be wise to point out that this discussion seems to be > >getting a little aggressive, and possibly a little personal. > > > >All sides have made valid points. It's obvious that Mr. Fee isn't going > >to agree with many of us on this particular issue, and his opinion is > >worth considering. > > > >I would remind Mr. Fee, very humbly (of course), that he is on the OSGeo > >mailing list, so in some respects he's chosen a fight in which he is > >very outnumbered. I don't know how productive it is to aggressively > >defend something like the .doc format on a mailing list for proponents > >of open source software. :] > > > >You'll probably have about as much success as you would touting the .odt > >format on a mailing list for the Microsoft Word fan club. :] > > Landon, > > James is making valid points about practical aspects of openness. I > hesitate to sign the declaration because it seems to absolutist and > not recognizing of practical aspects of openness (as opposed to de-jure > definitions of open standards). > > I personally am dubious this discussion will accomplish anything useful > because of the vague generalities of the original proposition, and the > lack of a real purpose to the discussion. But I'm also not inclined to > discourage James or others from expressing their position once the > discussion has started. > > Another example often given a bit more in our realm than .doc files is > shapefiles. They are technically a proprietary format belonging to > one proprietary vendor. But the format is published, widely implemented > in free and proprietary software and quite understandable. So I think it > is reasonable for government data to be distributed in this format.
Free of patents? ESRI has always been the "Microsoft of GIS", so beware of patents on this particular format. > On the other hand, in many cases, government agencies have ended up > publishing data in formats like SAIF, SDTS and various highly custom > GML schemas that are technically open, but for practical purposes they > are very difficult to utilize. > > What I would like to discourage is governments distributing in file > formats (like the mentioned new ESRI File Geodatabase) that are effectively > closed - at least for the time being. > > Like MPG, I'm sympathetic to the goals of the declaration but am concerned > it is not sufficiently practical. And I'm a very practical guy. "Practical guys" makes compromises with freedom. As a citizen, I don't accept the government rolling over my basic rights. -- Benjamin Henrion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss