Hi Henrique,
> "Therefore: OSGeo decisions actually are taken in absence of
representatives of the inventor and the consumer, consequently can change when
the wind changes."
I'm not sure that's a good take-home from the conversation so far.
The OSGeo appears to already have a pretty clear definition of what it
considers free and open (from
http://www.osgeo.org/content/faq/foundation_faq.html#Open_Source ) :
"Open source software is software where the source code is made available
under a license that allows the modification, and re-distribution of the
software at will."
So while there are multiple interpretations and variations for "free" and
"open", as far as I can see, if software isn't distributed under an OSI
approved license (https://opensource.org/licenses ), it's not "free and open"
for the purposes of the current definition as used by the OSGeo.
Whether the OSGeo definition (or by extension the OSI one) is correct is a
question that's beyond the scope of my reply. :-)
Cheers,
Jonathan
---- On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:00:38 +0100 Munich Orientation
Convention<[email protected]> wrote ----
Hello Brian,
thank you for the confirmation that MOC isn’t (and shouldn’t be) free and open.
Therefore: OSGeo decisions actually are taken in absence of representatives of
the inventor and the consumer, consequently can change when the wind changes.
My last approach concerned ideas to the Geo Awareness Week, that means, for
young consumers. A similar situation: adults decide about writing, publishing
and buying books for children.
In Bonn there will a speech about free, open and libre. This shows that in some
cases openmania could be the wrong way.
The site “free the post code” www.freeThePostCode.org proves that even
enigmatic post codes aren’t free, therefore universities etc. promote it (by
unreflected use?). According to my surveys, nobody knows where is the N/S/E/W
transition point ( the pole ! ) in London.
I also wrote to the National Geographic and I’m sure that Geo Awareness and
open mind will overcome.
One possibility could be to amputate the invention to a free and open torso for
those who insist on saving EUR 1,- . Would this be of interest for OSGeo?
Henrique
Von: Discuss [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Brian M
Hamlin
Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. August 2016 21:29
An: [email protected]; [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Geo4All - Empowering academics and educators
globally - requesting colleagues to share Geo4All ideas at Geography Awareness
Week
Dear Colleagues -
I strongly object to this statement..
" ... t this system can NOT be considered OPEN in the usual definition and is
therefore not something OSGEO shoudl be involved with... "
There are numerous references to cite here.. details on request
best regards from Berkeley, California
--Brian M Hamlin PSC OSGeo-Live, California Chapter
##===============================
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 08:46:38 +0000
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Geo4All - Empowering academics and
educators globally - requesting colleagues to share Geo4All ideas at
Geography Awareness Week
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Quote: " The license fee for educational purposes is symbolically EUR 1,- "
This implies there is also a (higher?) non-educational fee, and also means IMHO
that this system can NOT be considered OPEN in the usual definition and is
therefore not something OSGEO shoudl be involved with...
Yours,
--
Barend Köbben
Senior Lecturer – ITC-University of Twente
PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede (Netherlands)
ITC Building (room 1-065)
@barendkobben
+31-(0)53 4874 253
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
