Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Journal] OSGEO journal

[Landon Blake]

Christian wrote: "First, the Journal has failed to build enough academic
merit, that researchers seriously consider to submit their work to the
Journal.
Second, the articles about community activities need to be published and
circulated within short time spans after that activity/event, thus a longer
editing and publication process as inevitable for a peer-reviewed Journal
is not suitable. Thus, these posts are ending up on blogs and also on the
wiki. And I actually think, that this is the better forum for this kind of
content, including lots of photos, web links and also videos, etc."

Great observation. Seems like the journal suffers from trying to be two (2)
things at once: an academic journal and a newsletter for OSGeo. Perhaps the
journal would do better if we separated these two (2) functions.

Landon

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Helena Mitasova  wrote:

> Christian
>
> - I am very much in support of your ideas. It may be useful to post this
> vision on the geo4all and osgeo discuss list. I am sure there will be
> volunteers willing to help out or at least encourage contributions and
> reviews. This would also help to coordinate with other publishing ideas
> such as the one proposed by Charlie focusing on peer reviewed educational
> material (which would be interesting niche that nobody has done so far - we
> could have one of the issues focused on that topic).
>
> Helena
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Christian Willmes  > wrote:
>
>> Dear Dimitris,
>>
>> its great to hear, that you are also interested in working on the OSGeo
>> Journal.
>>
>> Regarding your proposal and ideas, I see the OSGeo Journal more as an
>> academic journal, just look at the history of published issues [1]. Five
>> academic tracks proceedings, I did not counted the single academic papers,
>> but it will amount to 30-40 papers I think.
>> I am in favour to also have community reports, if they are provided (what
>> was not abundantly the case in the past either).
>>
>> But here is my analysis of and vision for the Journal.
>>
>> First, the Journal has failed to build enough academic merit, that
>> researchers seriously consider to submit their work to the Journal.
>> Second, the articles about community activities need to be published and
>> circulated within short time spans after that activity/event, thus a longer
>> editing and publication process as inevitable for a peer-reviewed Journal
>> is not suitable. Thus, these posts are ending up on blogs and also on the
>> wiki. And I actually think, that this is the better forum for this kind of
>> content, including lots of photos, web links and also videos, etc..
>>
>> So, I would suggest to keep the journal more in an academic direction,
>> and try to build merit, so that researchers start to reconsider submitting
>> to the OSGeo journal. One big point in this is, that the Journal should be
>> the default publication for FOSS4G academic track contributions. Of course,
>> attracting academics with the possibility of publications in a higher
>> ranking journal like Transactions in GIS in the past, for some few best
>> submissions each year should be also the case in the future as a major
>> attractor for academics. This practice would also yield more submissions to
>> be published in the OSGeo Journal.
>>
>> I think the OSGeo Journal can and should take a niche, that is not really
>> occupied in the Journal landscape yet. That is, articles presenting OSGeo
>> Projects, including software architecture, licensing model, road maps,
>> overview of dev community, etc. and of course case studies that focus on
>> the application of OSGeo projects in education, in public sector, for
>> development work, in industry etc.. These papers do not have to meet the
>> highest academic standards, they primarily have the function to highlight
>> OSGeo projects and to provide citable works on these OSGeo Projects. The
>> submission of papers should be generally open to everyone, no prerequisites
>> (like acad. degrees or something) whatsoever.
>>
>> Of course, a section on reposts from events etc. can and should also be
>> maintained. I would suggest that we have at first one Issue per year
>> (additionally to the FOSS4G academic track) that is open from the beginning
>> of a year to the end, and adds submissions, as soon as they are reviewed
>> and edited to this issue. Its no problem if there are at first very few
>> papers in an issue, it is more important, that we start to publish again.
>> We should keep it as simple as possible, not overarching criteria, such as
>> themes etc.. The only important criteria should be, that it has something
>> to do with OSGeo. Quality and validity is checked and if needed improved
>> during the review process.
>>
>> So, I would like to volunteer for a Journal in that direction.
>> I am open to other directions, but prefer the above depicted agenda.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christian
>>
>> [1] 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Lidar News magazine false statements on (L)GPL (Was [OSGeo-Standards] REPORT: my OGC membership slot)

[Landon Blake]

Did we ever hear back from the guys at LIDAR Magazine about publishing a
response?

Landon

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Jo Cook  wrote:

> I think this is something that we at OSGeo should definitely respond to.
> Perhaps we could contact the magazine and explain that there were some
> factual errors in the article, and ask for a chance to respond?
>
> Jo
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Johan Van de Wauw <
> johan.vandew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Martin Isenburg
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > Another curious thing is that I (and the open source license LGPL) was
>> > attacked vehemently in a recent column called "Open Source Mania" by
>> Lewis
>> > Graham that was published in the LiDAR News magazine. Viewer discretion
>> > advised and parental guidance suggested ... you will not like this FUD
>> > attack:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.lidarmag.com/PDF/LiDARNewsMagazine_Graham-OpenSourceMania_Vol5No4.pdf
>> >
>>
>> I read the article and there are a lot of statements there which are
>> false.
>> " if you touch a piece of GPL code with the nine foot pole of
>> launching it with a Python script, that script must now be GPLed"
>> not true
>>
>> "Suppose you have developed some very, very clever algorithm on which
>> you and your university have applied for a patent. If you have coded
>> your algorithm and used any GPL whatsoever, you just GPLed your
>> patent. The patent rights effectively transfer to the Open Software
>> Foundation for free distribution."
>>
>> Completely untrue. The Open Software Foundation does not exist. You
>> don't transfer patent rights at all. A well known counter-example is
>> the algortihm for MP3, where the code (lame) was released under LGPL.
>>
>> I think as OSGeo we should reply to the statements, this is an attack
>> on our community. Perhaps we can ask someone from the Free Software
>> Foundation Europe to help write a response?
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Johan
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Jo Cook*
> Astun Technology Ltd, The Coach House, 17 West Street, Epsom, Surrey, KT18
> 7RL, UK
> t:+44 7930 524 155
> iShare - Data integration and publishing platform
> 
>
> *
>
> Company registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales.
> Registered office: 120 Manor Green Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8LN VAT no.
> 864201149.
>
> ___
> 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