Hello Henrique,
OGC members have adopted a policy of free and open standards, so a premium
model does not fit our current mission.
I am going to move this conversation over to an OGC channel so that we can
further discuss any potential for submission of your idea to our process.
Thanks,
Scott
Cameron -
Thanks for the clarifications.
Just one clarification to your clarifications: Esri was not looking for
royalty payments or some level of licensing. They had agreed to vest all IP
with the OGC so that the standard could have been released as an open
standard on a Royalty Free, non-discri
Hi Henrique,
It appears from your arguments that you are approaching the wrong people
for support, and probably should be looking elsewhere.
On 21/10/2015 12:41 am, Munich Orientation Convention wrote:
The definition of these relevant urban poles is a result of many years
of hard work and I
On 2015-10-20 15:41, Munich Orientation Convention wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello Scott,
>
>
>
> I like your questions.
>
>
>
> The most important is that the experts agree that r100 is a good and consumer
> friendly Convention, at least for fast orientation purposes and as an
> alternative to open s
Hello Scott,
I like your questions.
The most important is that the experts agree that r100 is a good and
consumer friendly Convention, at least for fast orientation purposes and as
an alternative to open squared systems or simply "here". The specifications
for this piece of a polar syst
Thanks, Henrique,
I think that you will have to determine how to divide your concept into a part
that is valuable to the entire community as a free and open standard and into a
part that you can preserve to earn revenue. I do not understand what you mean
by “openwashing,” so please better descr
Hello Scott,
my license model is very simple: CASE by CASE. The fees can be zero or
symbolical (Burundi) and the merit principle should be valid, therefore not
collide with the openmania.
Now that OGC is reviewing the own corset, it would a good opportunity to
consider a forgotten targe
