> Free of patents? ESRI has always been the "Microsoft of GIS", so beware
> of patents on this particular format.
We should be specific in what we say. ESRI has not registered any patents
(they might have inherited some from acquisitions) and they claim to have
a company wide policy to never regis
[...]
> I thought we were talking about forcing governments to offer up
> information in a "open standard" format. Are you saying that if a city
> has standardized on MS Office, it would be ok for them to continue to
> post .doc? I got the feeling that folks are saying these cities need to
> aba
[...]
But disagree there. Switching from M$ documents to 'real' open source
documents and dropping licensed graphical data in favour of OSM and
other free map data opens the door to 'Standardising' on something that
[...]
For the records: correct terminology. There is nothing wrong with putti
P Kishor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080515]:
> On 5/15/08, Benjamin Henrion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Fee, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080515]:
> > > Benjamin Henrion wrote:
> > >
> > > >> The only application that reads 100% proprietary
> > > >> file formats is the application that goes with it.
> >
I find some parts of this discussion interesting, but would it be
possible to focus our discussion on geographic standards?
My email inbox is overflowing.
Thanks, Tara
Benjamin Henrion wrote:
Fee, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080515]:
Benjamin Henrion wrote:
And I have a right to find
would have said.
Landon
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Bowden
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:40 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 09:53 -0700, Landon Blake wrote
2008/5/15 Frank Warmerdam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think there is a great danger to the open source, open data, and open
> standards efforts in the attempts to legislate them. Done carelessly,
> legislation will inevitably lead to situations that are rediculous and this
> will discredit the whole
s is the case in Europe, but I could be mistaken.
Landon
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Warmerdam
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:59 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
Benjamin Henrion w
; -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fee, James
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:40 AM
> To: OSGeo Discussions
> Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
>
> Chris Puttick wrote:
>
On 5/15/08, Benjamin Henrion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fee, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080515]:
> > Benjamin Henrion wrote:
> >
> > >> The only application that reads 100% proprietary
> > >> file formats is the application that goes with it.
> >
> > Well shoot, that can be said about a lot of fo
Benjamin Henrion wrote:
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
Fee, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080515]:
> Benjamin Henrion wrote:
>
> >> The only application that reads 100% proprietary
> >> file formats is the application that goes with it.
>
> Well shoot, that can be said about a lot of formats even those that are
> open. Does OO read/write ODF better tha
Benjamin Henrion wrote:
>> The only application that reads 100% proprietary
>> file formats is the application that goes with it.
Well shoot, that can be said about a lot of formats even those that are
open. Does OO read/write ODF better than Google Docs does?
>> I preper that my tax-payer mone
sday, May 15, 2008 10:13 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
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 ma
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
Fee, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080515]:
> Benjamin Henrion wrote:
>
> >> And I have a right to find out what my governement is doing, how is
> it
> >> possible if the governement forces me to buy a copy Microsoft Word
> 2003
> >> (TM), and thus also a copy of Microsoft Windows (TM), and thus also
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
;
> Landon
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fee, James
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:40 AM
> To: OSGeo Discussions
> Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
>
> Chris Puttick wrote:
&
Benjamin Henrion wrote:
>> And I have a right to find out what my governement is doing, how is
it
>> possible if the governement forces me to buy a copy Microsoft Word
2003
>> (TM), and thus also a copy of Microsoft Windows (TM), and thus also
an
>> intel x86-based computer?
We are so getting in
xt come even close to .doc.
Landon
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fee, James
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:57 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
Landon Blake wrote
>> I would remind Mr. Fe
Landon Blake wrote
>> 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 li
Fee, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080515]:
> Benjamin Henrion wrote:
>
> >> Exclude proprietary file formats from public nuisance, yes.
>
> Public nuisance? Surely the public at large gets to choose what they
> view as a nuisance rather than you?
Public nuisance is for example "promotion of mono
5, 2008 9:40 AM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
Chris Puttick wrote:
>> I'm sorry. In what way does requiring digital information to be in
an
>> open standard force or exclude anyone? Be very sure those companies
>> desp
Benjamin Henrion wrote:
>> Exclude proprietary file formats from public nuisance, yes.
Public nuisance? Surely the public at large gets to choose what they
view as a nuisance rather than you?
--
James Fee, GISP
Associate
TEC Inc.
voice: 480.736.3976
data: 480.736.3677
internet: [EMAIL PROT
Chris Puttick wrote:
>> I'm sorry. In what way does requiring digital information to be in an
>> open standard force or exclude anyone? Be very sure those companies
>> desperately resisting the development and/or support of digital standards
>> would provide support for government mandated o
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:53:16AM +0100, Lester Caine wrote:
> >You must not mean a "M$" Office Open XML document since it is of course
> >and open standard. *shrug*
>
> Well since M$ do not have any software that actually produces OOXML
> documents yet At least not to the format submitt
- "P Kishor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/15/08, Chris Puttick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > - "P Kishor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > Standards for everything that matters.
>
> Chris,
>
> You are conflating a whole boatload of things here, and "everything
> th
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Fee, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benjamin Henrion
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:56 PM
> To: OSGeo Discussions
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Dis
On 5/15/08, Chris Puttick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - "P Kishor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > But disagree there. Switching from M$ documents to 'real' open
> > source
> > > documents and dropping licensed graphical data in favour of OSM and
> > other
> > > free map data
- "P Kishor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > But disagree there. Switching from M$ documents to 'real' open
> source
> > documents and dropping licensed graphical data in favour of OSM and
> other
> > free map data opens the door to 'Standardising' on something that we
> can all
> > cooper
P Kishor wrote:
"free and open digital standards" is all well and good but a
meaningless concept. Standard for what?
But disagree there. Switching from M$ documents to 'real' open source
documents and dropping licensed graphical data in favour of OSM and other
free map data opens the door to '
Hi all,
having common standards must be propagated.
Egovernance, is catching up in the developing world and India has its share too.
It is pertinent to keep the formats common like in OGC
where irrespective of the software used, file types are Open.
Cheers
Ravi Kumar
P Kishor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
On 5/15/08, Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> P Kishor wrote:
>
> > On 5/14/08, Michael P. Gerlek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not looking to start a debate, but...
> > >
> >
> > you just did, and a good one at that.
> >
> >
> > > >> We call on all governments to:
> > > >>
> >
IMO:
Good points Michael.
> I'm not looking to start a debate, but...
ditto. (perhaps I should stay out of this...)
>
> >> We call on all governments to:
> >>
> >> 1. Procure only information technology that implements free and
> open standards;
This is desirable, however consider:
T
- "James Fee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benjamin
> Henrion
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:56 PM
> To: OSGeo Discussions
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re:
Fee, James wrote:
Lester Caine wrote:
>>It 'somewhat annoys me' when I receive an M$ document from a
>>council and am expected to edit and return it. They get back a PDF
because I
>>know that the format will be as I laid it out.
You must not mean a "M$" Office Open XML document since it i
Lester Caine wrote:
>>It 'somewhat annoys me' when I receive an M$ document from a
>>council and am expected to edit and return it. They get back a PDF because I
>>know that the format will be as I laid it out.
You must not mean a "M$" Office Open XML document since it is of course and
open s
P Kishor wrote:
On 5/14/08, Michael P. Gerlek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not looking to start a debate, but...
you just did, and a good one at that.
>> We call on all governments to:
>>
>> 1. Procure only information technology that implements free and
open standards;
>> 2. Deli
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benjamin Henrion
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:56 PM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
>>And force its citizens to buy a copy of proprietary software,
Michael P. Gerlek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080514]:
> I'm not looking to start a debate, but...
>
> >> We call on all governments to:
> >>
> >> 1. Procure only information technology that implements free and
> open standards;
> >> 2. Deliver e-government services based exclusively on free and open
On 5/14/08, Michael P. Gerlek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not looking to start a debate, but...
>
you just did, and a good one at that.
> >> We call on all governments to:
> >>
> >> 1. Procure only information technology that implements free and
> open standards;
> >> 2. Deliver e-g
I'm not looking to start a debate, but...
>> We call on all governments to:
>>
>> 1. Procure only information technology that implements free and
open standards;
>> 2. Deliver e-government services based exclusively on free and open
standards;
>> 3. Use only free and open digital standards i
42 matches
Mail list logo
