If I'm not mistaken at the last FOSS4G conference OracleXE already did have a
demonstration and it wasn't nearly as integrated with open source software as
the requirements we're now talking about to be part of FOSS4G. I didn't attend
it, but I did talk to some of the presenters afterwards for som
Arnulf,
"Managed Web Mapping Application Framework"
That's pretty good. I've been looking for a description just about
like that. :c)
While we haven't got the specific capability of building a client from
the Server in place (yet) the MOOSE frame work certainly is intended to
do so. As you
On 28-Feb-07, at 11:06 AM, Bob Basques wrote:
I'm wondering about finding a new home for a Mapping Client Project.
What requirements are there for proposing a new project under the
OSGEO
Umbrella?
I can set up a Physical home for it, but was wondering more about
having
OSGEO handling the
Zachary L. Stauber wrote:
If I'm not mistaken at the last FOSS4G conference OracleXE already did have a
demonstration and it wasn't nearly as integrated with open source software as
the requirements we're now talking about to be part of FOSS4G. I didn't attend
it, but I did talk to some of the p
Just to add a bit more spice to the discussion. I think the root problem here is a definition amoung open source purists. Jeff Thurston has added some interesting points to his blog (below).
---
How Free is Free? How Open is Open?
An interesting discussion is going on within the OSGEO commmuni
ross s wrote:
Just to add a bit more spice to the discussion. I think the root
problem here is a definition amoung open source purists. Jeff Thurston
has added some interesting points to his blog (below).
---
So? is your ?free? more pure than my ?free?? Is there a ?free-o-meter?
or somethin
On Mar 5, 2007, at 13:26, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
ross s wrote:
Just to add a bit more spice to the discussion. I think the root
problem here is a definition amoung open source purists. Jeff
Thurston has added some interesting points to his blog (below).
---
So? is your ?free? more pure t
On Mon, March 5, 2007 19:26, Allan Doyle wrote:
>
> On Mar 5, 2007, at 13:26, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>
>> ross s wrote:
>>> Just to add a bit more spice to the discussion. I think the root
>>> problem here is a definition amoung open source purists. Jeff
>>> Thurston has added some interesting p
On Mar 5, 2007, at 13:26, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> The lack of understanding of what we mean by free just demonstrates the
> need for additional outreach by OSGeo.
I am still trying to get my head around the "free and open source" concept.
I've been through the Free Software Foundation site and
On Mar 5, 2007, at 13:49, Ned Horning wrote:
On Mar 5, 2007, at 13:26, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
The lack of understanding of what we mean by free just
demonstrates the
need for additional outreach by OSGeo.
I am still trying to get my head around the "free and open source"
concept.
I've b
The OSGeo Newsletter development team invites you to contribute news,
articles, event summaries, programming tutorials and more for the
upcoming OSGeo News - Volume 1. There are several sections planned
for the newsletter. General descriptions of each category can be
found on the Newsletter
Now class! Please pay attention!!
According to the Free Software Foundation
Free software is software that comes with permission for anyone to use,
copy, and distribute, either verbatim or with modifications, either
gratis or for a fee. In particular, this means that source code must be
avail
Au contraire, you'll find the GPL and LGPL duly listed as OSI-approved
licenses here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
While the "free" folks might not like the flexibility displayed by the
"open source" movement, they can be fully subsumed from a licensing
point-of-view, if not an advocacy
On Mar 5, 2007, at 13:49, Allan Doyle wrote:
> There are Open Source licenses that do not require all of freedoms of
> Free Software, particularly the requirement to deliver source code if
> you also deliver modifications. That effectively lets people close
> off improvements they have made to for
Ned Horning wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2007, at 13:26, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>
>> The lack of understanding of what we mean by free just demonstrates the
>> need for additional outreach by OSGeo.
>
> I am still trying to get my head around the "free and open source" concept.
> I've been through the Fre
On Mar 5, 2007, at 14:27, Paul Ramsey wrote:
Au contraire, you'll find the GPL and LGPL duly listed as OSI-
approved licenses here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
While the "free" folks might not like the flexibility displayed by
the "open source" movement, they can be fully subsumed fro
On Mon, March 5, 2007 20:33, Ned Horning wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2007, at 13:49, Allan Doyle wrote:
>
>> There are Open Source licenses that do not require all of freedoms of
>> Free Software, particularly the requirement to deliver source code if
>> you also deliver modifications. That effectively let
> PS. What is the "correct" term for software that doesn't cost anything
but
> is closed (like MultiSpec and 3DEM)? Freeware?
gratisware
nick
Opinions contained in this e-mail do not necessarily reflect
the opinions of the Queensland
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 13:26 -0500, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> ross s wrote:
> > Just to add a bit more spice to the discussion. I think the root
> > problem here is a definition amoung open source purists. Jeff Thurston
> > has added some interesting points to his blog (below).
> >
> > ---
> > S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
ross s wrote:
> Just to add a bit more spice to the discussion. I think the root
> problem here is a definition amoung open source purists. Jeff Thurston
> has added some interesting points to his blog (below).
>
I think the root of the problem is
20 matches
Mail list logo
