On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:32 AM, María Arias de Reyna < delawen+os...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a rough-and-tumble competition - we can no longer use the short >> hand "open" to capture what we do here at OSGeo. We are going to have to >> wade into these debates with a strong story and clear examples from our >> community. We should also expect platforms to be built up around our open >> source projects (say Carto being built around PostGIS). This is a great way >> to ensure these projects stay viable, as long as we keep everyone involved >> sufficiently encouraged/valued/funded. >> >> Oh and to answer your question, the mislead customers may of confused >> "open source" with "open platform". If we want the distinction clear in the >> market we need to use organizations such as OSGeo to push that messag >> > > I strongly disagree. We should use the word free as much as we can to get > our space back, but also we should enfoce recovering the real meaning of > open. Because leaving "open" to this false open software advocators will > mean losing an important battle. The next thing will be not being able to > call open to things that are also free. > Maybe this part was not clear enough. I disagree that we can't use the word "open" to capture what we do. I think we can and should do. And point everywhere were it is not being correctly used. Being active here is important *now*, while we still have the meaning not completely perverted and the companies that do openwashing still play with the idea that they are "open" in the real sense. (btw: most of Carto is also open software: https://github.com/CartoDB maybe not a good example of a closed wrapper over an open software.)
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss