Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Is it possible for properitery GIS vendor to market thier properitery product as Open ?
Hi, On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: > Considering android is marketed as open, yes this is possible in our > industry as well :) > Android is open: https://source.android.com/source/downloading.html You can download the code, modify it, build it, use it and redistribute it. Some versions of Android may have private drivers or extensions, but Android itself is open. And free. https://source.android.com/source/licenses.html#android-open-source-project-license Keep in mind we have several definitions of "open", even "open source" does > not match the same meaning of open advocated by the free software > foundation. > > In our industry specifically we have open standards, allowing many > proprietary (and open source) products to be marketed as "open" (in the > sense that they support a standard allowing integration in a larger > systems). > >From my perspective, that's perverting a very clear definition of open. We all had a very plain and specific meaning of open until some companies started to pervert it for their own evil purposes. *What's in a name? that which we call a roseBy any other name would smell as sweet;* That which we call closed software will still stink as closed, even if you call it open. > > By the same token a proprietary vendor can define an API with license > terms allowing customers and third-party vendors to create additional > functionality that extends their software. This is the meaning of "open > platform" I think you are referring to. There is a lot more meaning behind > "open platform" though, ideally you have a way for those third-party > vendors to turn a profit thus motivating their continued participation in > your platform. > That's not an open platform. That's having an accesible API for you services. Please, do not confuse the terms. 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. This is for our own good: if we leave "open" become dirty, we will have problems even when trying to explain to our customers why open software is better than closed software. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Is it possible for properitery GIS vendor to market thier properitery product as Open ?
So, to make it clear: * Being interoperable (using open standards) does not mean being open * Having an API open to third party developers does not mean being open * Using libraries that are open in your source code does not mean being open * Having a good documentation does not mean being open A company can try to use the word "open" to market but that's just openwashing. Just like when a food company tries to advertise something as healthy just because it has like 0,1% of something that is healthy (according to EU laws, that's legal). You can use the word "open" and maybe it is legal (or maybe not?), but that doesn't mean you are not lying. On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:32 AM, María Arias de Reyna < delawen+os...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Jody Garnett > wrote: > >> Considering android is marketed as open, yes this is possible in our >> industry as well :) >> > > Android is open: https://source.android.com/source/downloading.html > > You can download the code, modify it, build it, use it and redistribute > it. Some versions of Android may have private drivers or extensions, but > Android itself is open. And free. > > https://source.android.com/source/licenses.html#android- > open-source-project-license > > > Keep in mind we have several definitions of "open", even "open source" >> does not match the same meaning of open advocated by the free software >> foundation. >> >> In our industry specifically we have open standards, allowing many >> proprietary (and open source) products to be marketed as "open" (in the >> sense that they support a standard allowing integration in a larger >> systems). >> > > > From my perspective, that's perverting a very clear definition of open. We > all had a very plain and specific meaning of open until some companies > started to pervert it for their own evil purposes. > > > *What's in a name? that which we call a roseBy any other name would smell > as sweet;* > > That which we call closed software will still stink as closed, even if you > call it open. > > >> >> By the same token a proprietary vendor can define an API with license >> terms allowing customers and third-party vendors to create additional >> functionality that extends their software. This is the meaning of "open >> platform" I think you are referring to. There is a lot more meaning behind >> "open platform" though, ideally you have a way for those third-party >> vendors to turn a profit thus motivating their continued participation in >> your platform. >> > > That's not an open platform. That's having an accesible API for you > services. Please, do not confuse the terms. > > > 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. > > This is for our own good: if we leave "open" become dirty, we will have > problems even when trying to explain to our customers why open software is > better than closed software. > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Is it possible for properitery GIS vendor to market thier properitery product as Open ?
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
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Is it possible for properitery GIS vendor to market thier properitery product as Open ?
Dear all, In all countries of the OECD marketing practices are regulated in one way or another. For instance, if I sell ear rings made out of lead I can not claim they are made of silver. In some cases this sort of distinction is not easy, as is the case with "open source" or "open". In the European Union various mechanisms have been put in place for similar situations, such as the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) [0] to label goods produced in specific regions (think of Port, Champagne, Scotch) or the Traditional Specialities Guaranteed (TSG) [1] to differentiate products crafted by traditional processes. So far, organisations like the OSGeo or the FSF have focused on labelling projects that meet particular criteria in open source, but have not - and can not - prevent others from misusing the concept. This thread shows that this is a new path the community must trail. I believe we need a regulatory framework for "open source" labelling; something like the EU regulation 1169/2011 [2] for organic farming. It not only sets the criteria for farmers to label their products, as it actively prevents others from falsely claiming to that criteria. Regards. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_traditional_specialities_in_the_European_Union#Protected_designation_of_origin_.28PDO.29 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_traditional_specialities_in_the_European_Union#Traditional_specialities_guaranteed_.28TSG.29 [2] https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/organic-farming/what-is-organic-farming/organic-certification_en -- Luís Moreira de Sousa Im Grund 6 CH-8600 Dübendorf Switzerland Phone: +41 (0)79 812 62 65 Email: luis.de.so...@protonmail.ch URL: https://sites.google.com/site/luismoreiradesousa___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Is it possible for properitery GIS vendor to market thier properitery product as Open ?
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Luís Moreira de Sousa < luis.de.so...@protonmail.ch> wrote: > > I believe we need a regulatory framework for "open source" labelling; > something like the EU regulation 1169/2011 [2] for organic farming. It not > only sets the criteria for farmers to label their products, as it actively > prevents others from falsely claiming to that criteria. > +1 Restarting the movement for the european chapter to be able to lobby for this... ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Is it possible for properitery GIS vendor to market thier properitery product as Open ?
Historically, labeling software "open" has meant built to open standards that anyone else could theoretically implement. For example OpenLook, OpenSTEP, The Open Software Foundation (the group behind the Motif X11 toolkit - and the lack of a free and open source implementation was a major stumbling block in porting lots of existing software to Linux prior to lessrif and then the general switch to GTK), X/Open. It wasn't until the late 90's that "open" started being used as shorthand for "open source" largely due to the influence of esr (Eric S. Raymond) as a pragmatic response to the commonly held (and in my opinion incorrect) view at the time that free software as promoted by RMS (Richard Stallman) wasn't suitable for use by businesses. I know this may be seen as many as semantic minutiae, but this email thread seems to be getting at the now decades old argument about the differences between "open source" and free (as in libre) software. This differentiation is well covered online, so I will not repeat it here. So in my view of the terms: Can a proprietary system be "open"? Yes and based on historical usage even closed source systems can be labeled "open". Can a proprietary system be "open source"? Again historically yes. As an extreme example of this, I believe once upon a time Microsoft open-sourced many parts of Windows but with an extremely restrictive license and limitations that certainly did and do not meet the norms of the open source community. IIRC The early versions of Qt also were also a less extreme example of this. Can proprietary software be free/libre? No, by definition. On Mar 23, 2017 04:21, "María Arias de Reyna" wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Luís Moreira de Sousa < > luis.de.so...@protonmail.ch> wrote: > >> >> I believe we need a regulatory framework for "open source" labelling; >> something like the EU regulation 1169/2011 [2] for organic farming. It not >> only sets the criteria for farmers to label their products, as it actively >> prevents others from falsely claiming to that criteria. >> > > > +1 Restarting the movement for the european chapter to be able to lobby > for this... > > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Is it possible for properitery GIS vendor to market thier properitery product as Open ?
Think my point is that android software is open source ... but the android open platform is google. Open platform - business arrangement between platform provider, customers and vendors Open software source - software license model On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:11 AM James Klassen wrote: > Historically, labeling software "open" has meant built to open standards > that anyone else could theoretically implement. For example OpenLook, > OpenSTEP, The Open Software Foundation (the group behind the Motif X11 > toolkit - and the lack of a free and open source implementation was a major > stumbling block in porting lots of existing software to Linux prior to > lessrif and then the general switch to GTK), X/Open. > > It wasn't until the late 90's that "open" started being used as shorthand > for "open source" largely due to the influence of esr (Eric S. Raymond) as > a pragmatic response to the commonly held (and in my opinion incorrect) > view at the time that free software as promoted by RMS (Richard Stallman) > wasn't suitable for use by businesses. > > I know this may be seen as many as semantic minutiae, but this email > thread seems to be getting at the now decades old argument about the > differences between "open source" and free (as in libre) software. This > differentiation is well covered online, so I will not repeat it here. > > So in my view of the terms: > > Can a proprietary system be "open"? Yes and based on historical usage > even closed source systems can be labeled "open". > > Can a proprietary system be "open source"? Again historically yes. As an > extreme example of this, I believe once upon a time Microsoft open-sourced > many parts of Windows but with an extremely restrictive license and > limitations that certainly did and do not meet the norms of the open source > community. IIRC The early versions of Qt also were also a less extreme > example of this. > > Can proprietary software be free/libre? No, by definition. > On Mar 23, 2017 04:21, "María Arias de Reyna" > wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Luís Moreira de Sousa < > luis.de.so...@protonmail.ch> wrote: > > > I believe we need a regulatory framework for "open source" labelling; > something like the EU regulation 1169/2011 [2] for organic farming. It not > only sets the criteria for farmers to label their products, as it actively > prevents others from falsely claiming to that criteria. > > > > +1 Restarting the movement for the european chapter to be able to lobby > for this... > > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- -- Jody Garnett ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] GRASS GIS video from 1987: 30th anniversary blog post / link
Thanks Peter, very enjoyable to read the history! Happy 30th anniversary to the famous video. Also, I'm proud to have played a small part in that video's history: at FOSS4G 2004 in Bangkok Jim Westervelt wowed us all when he first showed the digital version of that video in his keynote, and I waited patiently after his talk and got him to sign my GRASS 4.1 Users Manual (it is still on my desk here now, signed on 2004-09-14, love it!) and I asked him for a copy of that video. I think he gave it to me on a CD ha, and the rest is history, we then shared that digital copy everywhere :) Of course it was that same meeting where Markus, Venka and I would first meet and agree to create the annual FOSS4G event. Thanks for putting a big smile on my face today Peter! -jeff -- Jeff McKenna President Emeritus, OSGeo Foundation http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Jeff_McKenna On 2017-03-23 2:07 PM, "Peter Löwe" wrote: [Apologies for cross-posting !] Hallo all, this year marks the 30th anniversary of the release of the original GRASS GIS video dating from 1987. In recognisation of the videos significance for Geoinformatics, OSGeo and Star Trek, a post about „Star Trek, Universität Hannover and the origins of computer cartography“ has been released on the blog of the German National Library of Science and Technology, yesterday, being the birthday of William Shatner and the future birthday of James T. Kirk: https://blogs.tib.eu/wp/tib/2017/03/22/star-trek-universitaet-hannover-and-the-origins-of-computer-cartography A link to the high-resolution version of the video is included. Enjoy, Peter ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Is it possible for properitery GIS vendor to market thier properitery product as Open ?
+1 . I am also interested in how we can protect taxpayers money in this. The need for cost savings by using Open source GIS software will help the local authorities and various government departments across Europe in reducing huge licence fee costs for proprietary software and Government and taxpayers as a whole will benefit from cost efficiencies, reduce the cost of lock-in to suppliers and products. This is especially important for future IT investments (for example Cloud Computing) , so that more options are explored and choices available. I presented my ideas on the importance of having a National level strategy for Open Principles in Geospatial [1] . Overview slides are at https://www.slideshare.net/SuchithAnand/national-level-strategy-for-open-principles-in-geospatial It is my duty as a global citizen to work on this so that all our future generations are empowered fully. Let us plan to meet and discuss ideas at FOSS4G -Europe for making OSGeo European chapter. Best wishes, Suchith [1] http://opensourcegeospatial.icaci.org/2016/03/national-level-strategy-for-open-principles-in-geospatial-ideas-and-inputs-needed/ From: Discuss on behalf of María Arias de Reyna Sent: 23 March 2017 9:20 AM To: Luís Moreira de Sousa Cc: discuss@lists.osgeo.org Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Is it possible for properitery GIS vendor to market thier properitery product as Open ? On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Luís Moreira de Sousa mailto:luis.de.so...@protonmail.ch>> wrote: I believe we need a regulatory framework for "open source" labelling; something like the EU regulation 1169/2011 [2] for organic farming. It not only sets the criteria for farmers to label their products, as it actively prevents others from falsely claiming to that criteria. +1 Restarting the movement for the european chapter to be able to lobby for this... This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Wiki: InfrastructurePreferencesStatusQuo - call for update
Added a line for pgRouting On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote: > +1 Greatly insightful slide deck from Maxi about Open principles in > general and OSGeo in particular. Thanks for sharing. > > Cameron > > On 22/3/17 4:02 am, Jody Garnett wrote: > > That is a *great* talk, and shows a lot of areas where we can improve. > > There has been a consistent call for "incubation" to continue to hold > projects accountable to OSGeo standards. I have resisted these calls as I > view incubation as an outreach activity - part of our mission to promote > open/transparent software development. > > Still that is great to have an external review; is that review public? > > -- > Jody Garnett > > On 21 March 2017 at 01:18, Venkatesh Raghavan < > ragha...@media.osaka-cu.ac.jp> wrote: > >> Maxi also made an excelling presentation on related topic >> at FOSS4G-Asia 2017. The presentation is available at >> >> http://www.slideshare.net/cannata/massimiliano-cannata-keyno >> te-foss4gasia-2017 >> >> Best >> >> Venka >> >> On 2017/03/20 22:08, Jeff McKenna wrote: >> >>> Actually Maxi and I did a recent thorough research into OSGeo project >>> use of infrastructure, by each project, and it was published as a paper (or >>> soon to be). In the short term I know Maxi has submitted it as a talk for >>> FOSS4G-Europe. It's good to take a step back and review old processes. >>> Actually we hope that that was a start of a regular OSGeo project 'health >>> checkup', which obviously is very needed. For example, it was quite >>> shocking how many current OSGeo projects are functioning without any >>> regular Project Steering Committee meetings, or even a visible Project >>> Steering Committee. I am sure Maxi will be sharing those results at >>> FOSS4G-E. >>> >>> -jeff >>> >>> >> ___ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > > ___ > Discuss mailing > listDiscuss@lists.osgeo.orghttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > -- > Cameron Shorter > M +61 419 142 254 > > > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- Georepublic UG (haftungsbeschränkt) Salzmannstraße 44, 81739 München, Germany Vicky Vergara Operations Research eMail: vi...@georepublic.de Web: https://georepublic.info Tel: +49 (089) 4161 7698-1 Fax: +49 (089) 4161 7698-9 Commercial register: Amtsgericht München, HRB 181428 CEO: Daniel Kastl ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
