Very interesting and relevant thread! Good to see that people are considering serious study/reflection on the real (socio-economic) impacts of FOSS. I suppose you know about http://opensource.mit.edu But if not, have a look: a wide community of people studying this phenomenon.
A related (tangential?) topic that I think can be valuable to study is the idea of some sort of index or yardstick, to know when an SDI exists and when it is still in formation. Doug Nebert suggests a technology definition (SDI 1.0) and this idea is getting some traction within the GSDI Tech WG and related groups (i.e. OGC). I think that the more relevant measure is not so much whether technology pieces are/are not in place, but rather whether data sharing and (multi-agency) collaboration exist. That is, one agency putting up a WMS and serving x% more maps annually, is not enough to qualify as SDI...however many govt agencies are claiming SDI on this basis. Is there a parallel with FOSS? Talk versus action, and how to measure the difference? Cheers, ------- Michael Gould Centro de Visualización Interactiva www.cevi.uji.es Dept. Information Systems (LSI), Universitat Jaume I, 12071 Castellón, Spain email: gould (at) lsi.uji.es // email2: mgould (at) opengeospatial.org research group www.geoinfo.uji.es // personal www.mgould.com AGILE www.agile-online.org Vespucci Summer Institute www.vespucci.org Erasmus Mundus: Master in Geospatial Technologies www.mastergeotech.info -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: viernes, 20 de abril de 2007 22:12 To: [email protected] Subject: Geowanking Digest, Vol 41, Issue 16 Send Geowanking mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Geowanking digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Measuring Open Source Citenzenship (Brent Fraser) 2. Re: Measuring Open Source Citenzenship (Sean Gillies) 3. Measuring Open Source Citenzenship - Reconsidering (Landon Blake) 4. Re: Measuring Open Source Citenzenship - Reconsidering (Gregor J. Rothfuss) 5. Re: Measuring Open Source Citenzenship (Frank Warmerdam) 6. Re: Measuring Open Source Citenzenship - Reconsidering (Kake L Pugh) 7. RE: Measuring Open Source Citenzenship - Reconsidering (Landon Blake) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:40:27 -0600 From: "Brent Fraser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Measuring Open Source Citenzenship To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Landon, I'd be more interested in measuring the quality (and other things) of open source PROJECTS rather than corporations. The quality of a corporation's contribution really wouldn't change how much effort (or money) I put into an open source project (or whether I would recommend it to someone), but the quality of the project itself might. And to answer your specific question, perhaps it would be better to reward corporations (and individuals?) who contribute. Maybe a Bronze/Silver/Gold/Platinum status recognition or induction into an Open Source Hall of Fame? More carrot, less stick. Brent Fraser GeoAnalytic Inc. Calgary, Alberta ----- Original Message ----- From: "Landon Blake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:44 AM Subject: [Geowanking] Measuring Open Source Citenzenship I've been thinking about writing a short article on the involvement of corporations in the open source world. Specifically, I want to describe a system or set of rules for measuring the quality of a company's involvement in an open source community. In other words, I want to provide some measuring sticks that can help developers and managers answer the question "What type of citizen is this company in the open source community?". I think these guidelines can help developers and users that want to evaluate the merit of companies that claim to follow the open source or FOSS idealogy. I think it is very possible for a company to release code under an open source license, but at the same time to be lousy members of the open source community. I've already got some of the measuring sticks in mind. Has anyone done work on this topic before? Would you like to share with me what measures you use to gauge the "worthiness" of a company involved in open source development? I think this will become a more important subject as open source software development becomes more mainstream and more companies become involved. I think it will also be important to separate the corporate leeches from those that really give back to the open source community. Perhaps a standard rating system will evolve from the article, if one does not exist already. Thanks for your thoughts. The Sunburned Surveyor ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:59:00 -0600 From: Sean Gillies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Measuring Open Source Citenzenship To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Frank Warmerdam wrote: > Rich Gibson wrote: >> Hi Landon, >> >> With respect, I think that is a bad idea. Framing this is a matter of >> judging various types of citizenship creates an additional obstacle >> for companies to dodge when attempting to go FOSS. >> >> > I think it is very possible for a company to release code under an >> open source license, but at the same time to be lousy >members of the >> open source community. >> >> You initially used the word citizenship, and here moved to 'members of >> the open source community,' and decided that some members of the >> community are 'lousy.' This framing bothers me. Code is good. >> Releasing code is good. Anything beyond that is gravy... > > Rich, > > I completely agree with you, and find this whole line of review makes > me queasy. It's like trying to judge which companies are "christian > enough", or turning it around which might be communist sympathizers. > > I think we can laud some companies for taking progressive steps with > regard to open source, and we can occasionally highlight companies who > have gone out of their way to throw up anti open source FUD (ie. SCO, > Microsoft at times). But beyond that the whole idea smells bad to me. > > Without going into specifics, I've seen examples of organizations being > judged as "not open source enough" by puritans and seen the damage it > can cause. It seems like something that splits the community up rather > than putting up a big tent and letting different folks and organizations > come in as far as they are comfortable with. > > Landon - don't forget how powerful your blog can be! :-) > > Best regards, Frank, I agree with you (!) mostly, but I have to ask for specific examples of these organizations that were damaged by the puritans. Did they have to lay people off because some Stallman wanna-be criticized them on a blog? Did any IPOs fall flat? Is there a dollar figure for the damage caused by open source jihadists? Cheers, Sean -- Sean Gillies http://zcologia.com/news ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:28:47 -0700 From: "Landon Blake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Geowanking] Measuring Open Source Citenzenship - Reconsidering To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I didn't realize this would be such a sensitive issue. I am glad that I bounced the idea to the geowanking list before I published anything in a more public forum. First let me say that I believe some members of this forum have voiced an appropriate concern that I didn't think of, and further more, a concern that I need to be conscious of. I do think my intentions were misunderstood somewhat. I think my use of the word "lousy" might have had something to do with that. I have no problem with people making money from FOSS software. That might even be something I might want to do one day. :] Let me tell you what prompted by original post on this topic, and then maybe we can get some more thoughts on it. The thing that first got me thinking of this topic was a link to an article sent by a friend from work. This friend doesn't know very much about open source, but he knows that I dabble in it. Here is the link to the article: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&; articleId=9011340 I had never before considered that a company might release source code under an open source license as a way to harm a competitor. That got me to thinking, what motivates companies to release code under an open source license? After a company does so, what makes it an ethical member of the open source community? Is source code like drug money? Can it be tainted if depending on the source? What is the difference between a company that releases its source code under an open source license, but makes no or little work to integrate contributions from the community? What about a company that manages an open source product, but makes critical decisions about the code base without informing or involving the non-corporate and volunteer developers? I'm not saying that what these companies are doing is wrong, but I think it is obvious that some companies are better open source partners than others. The other thing that triggered this post was my IT Guys decision to pick-up a commercially supported Linux version. I'd been using Debian for a while, but he wanted something that had a company standing behind it. We decided to go with Xandros. I asked myself, "What type of open source citizen is Xandros? How actively do they participate in Debian development? Are they just sucking blood from Debian to make a profit, or are they applying bandages and helping to heal wounds? How does the Debian project feel about Xandros? How do I find out if there a company that I want to put my dollars behind. What if I was an investor and not just an IT Guy looking to buy a single seat of an operating system? How does an investor learn which companies play nice with open source, and which ones are just catching a ride on the latest "buzz-word" technology? Let me tell you what I think the most important reason is to answer the question I have raised. What if I'm a business considering how to release open source software and I want to "do-it-right"? Where would I look to guidelines on how to be a good member of the community, and where would I look for things to avoid? Where is my guide on being a good open source citizen? It may be true that the open source community isn't mature enough to ask questions like this. However, it sounds like a really interesting question for someone pursuing an economics major... The Sunburned Surveyor -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean Gillies Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 11:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Measuring Open Source Citenzenship Frank Warmerdam wrote: > Rich Gibson wrote: >> Hi Landon, >> >> With respect, I think that is a bad idea. Framing this is a matter of >> judging various types of citizenship creates an additional obstacle >> for companies to dodge when attempting to go FOSS. >> >> > I think it is very possible for a company to release code under an >> open source license, but at the same time to be lousy >members of the >> open source community. >> >> You initially used the word citizenship, and here moved to 'members of >> the open source community,' and decided that some members of the >> community are 'lousy.' This framing bothers me. Code is good. >> Releasing code is good. Anything beyond that is gravy... > > Rich, > > I completely agree with you, and find this whole line of review makes > me queasy. It's like trying to judge which companies are "christian > enough", or turning it around which might be communist sympathizers. > > I think we can laud some companies for taking progressive steps with > regard to open source, and we can occasionally highlight companies who > have gone out of their way to throw up anti open source FUD (ie. SCO, > Microsoft at times). But beyond that the whole idea smells bad to me. > > Without going into specifics, I've seen examples of organizations being > judged as "not open source enough" by puritans and seen the damage it > can cause. It seems like something that splits the community up rather > than putting up a big tent and letting different folks and organizations > come in as far as they are comfortable with. > > Landon - don't forget how powerful your blog can be! :-) > > Best regards, Frank, I agree with you (!) mostly, but I have to ask for specific examples of these organizations that were damaged by the puritans. Did they have to lay people off because some Stallman wanna-be criticized them on a blog? Did any IPOs fall flat? Is there a dollar figure for the damage caused by open source jihadists? Cheers, Sean -- Sean Gillies http://zcologia.com/news _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:49:24 -0400 From: "Gregor J. Rothfuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Measuring Open Source Citenzenship - Reconsidering To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Landon Blake wrote: > I had never before considered that a company might release source code > under an open source license as a way to harm a competitor. That got me > to thinking, what motivates companies to release code under an open > source license? After a company does so, what makes it an ethical member > of the open source community? Is source code like drug money? Can it be > tainted if depending on the source? increasing competition by releasing open source software is a good thing and has nothing to do with ethics. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:07:56 -0400 From: Frank Warmerdam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Measuring Open Source Citenzenship To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sean Gillies wrote: > Frank, I agree with you (!) mostly, but I have to ask for specific > examples of these organizations that were damaged by the puritans. Did > they have to lay people off because some Stallman wanna-be criticized > them on a blog? Did any IPOs fall flat? Is there a dollar figure for the > damage caused by open source jihadists? Sean, I meant damage in the sense that it made some question there interest in being involved in open source, and has contributed to some schisms in the open source geospatial community. (projects, companies and people not getting along well, etc). I'm not really all that concerned about IPO's, etc. Incidentally, I'm not talking about our schism. :-) Best regards, -- ---------------------------------------+------------------------------------ -- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [EMAIL PROTECTED] light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:02:54 +0100 From: Kake L Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Measuring Open Source Citenzenship - Reconsidering To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri 20 Apr 2007, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had never before considered that a company might release source code > under an open source license as a way to harm a competitor. This sounds a little like the recent rant by a VP of SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America): http://community.livejournal.com/sfwa/10039.html It didn't get much sympathy - see the comments. Kake ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:09:49 -0700 From: "Landon Blake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [Geowanking] Measuring Open Source Citenzenship - Reconsidering To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Kake, I hope you didn't think that I was ranting. That wasn't my intention. I was just curious more than anything, and wondered if others had considered or thought about this subject. I hope I didn't offend anyone by trying to stimulate some conversation. :] The Sunburned Surveyor -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kake L Pugh Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:03 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Measuring Open Source Citenzenship - Reconsidering On Fri 20 Apr 2007, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had never before considered that a company might release source code > under an open source license as a way to harm a competitor. This sounds a little like the recent rant by a VP of SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America): http://community.livejournal.com/sfwa/10039.html It didn't get much sympathy - see the comments. Kake _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking End of Geowanking Digest, Vol 41, Issue 16 ****************************************** _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
