Daniel, I'm not sure why exactly, but the "facilitates interoperability" seems fluffy for some reason. It might be something to integrate into the original statement however. The vendor lock-in piece is definitely something that will need to be included somehow, but I'm thinking there or two things here based on the replies so far, one is for a description of the position and another would be to define some sort of policy/or, dare I say it, "best practice" document, hopefully something that is hard to refute.
All good thoughts. Bobb > -----Original Message----- > From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss- > boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Morissette > Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:10 AM > To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Defining a GIO position (or > attmepting to . . .) > > > Maybe take it from a different angle? > > - Open Source software facilitates interoperability > > or > > - Open Source software breaks vendor lock-in > > > Vendor lock-in is a tactic used to protect a vendor's licensing > revenue stream by ensuring that customers cannot easily switch to > another suite of software, and interoperability through open > standards and truly open APIs is the best cure I can think of > against that. Open Source software excels at interoperability > because the "vendor lock-in gene" is generally absent from the DNA > of its developers. > > Daniel > > P.S. I see that Arnie Shore beat me by sending something along the > same lines a few seconds ago, but I thought I'd hit send anyway > > On 13-10-16 10:50 AM, María Arias de Reyna wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) > > <bob.basq...@ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> > >> > >> I wonder if I could get some feedback on the following > statement, I'm > >> looking for the other side of the argument (I know it's hard to > put > >> yourself there :c). > >> > >> > >> > >> "Open Source software enforces standards" > >> > >> > >> > >> Now this might be better worded, and it seems straight forward > enough here. > >> I'm trying to define a GIO position such that it doesn't > reference > >> anything commercial, but will still cover those commercial > packages at the same time. > >> I'm basically thinking about going the route of data standards > both > >> for archiving as well as distribution. > >> > >> > >> > >> So, what would you anticipate the other side of the argument > (Our > >> Human Resources section in this case) to reply to the above > >> statement, as if they wanted to include some specific > commercial > >> application in the assigned duties, for example. In the end > I'm > >> trying to get out of a long winded statement about why an open > >> approach is better than a commercial one and the standards > piece seem to be the best topic to base the discussion on. > > > > In my experience (maybe because I don't discuss this with people > who > > know much about the subject so they have very basic opinions), > they > > usually come with: > > > > * Standars aren't the better format to work with > > * Propietary standards can be more efficient because they are > > optimized for the propietary software > > * We already have the information on the propietary format and > don't > > want to migrate > > > > And, of course: > > * Our propietary solution also works with standards (this is > very > > tricky to fight against) > > > > Good luck! > > María. > > > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> > >> > >> Bobb > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > -- > Daniel Morissette > http://www.mapgears.com/ > Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000 > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
