Hi, specifically this page, it's company, we are more people (about 5-7 - I do cover the accounting and paper work) - but it's official "ltd."
I'm happy with the content (as I can only be) - do you have any problem with that? What IMHO does not work: the News are not clearly separated, it seems, they belong to the company - but they don't. Same applies to sponsors - some graphical element (ruler?) would make it more separated Thanks J po 21. 8. 2017 v 23:12 odesÃlatel Jody Garnett <[email protected]> napsal: > For your page > http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/service-providers/opengeolabs/ Is that a > single consultant (you!) or a company? > (or perhaps it is just a company with one person in it) > > Are you happy with how that page is presented? Not sure about the news > items (checking now they do not really let us shortlist news or resources > yet) > > -- > Jody Garnett > > On 21 August 2017 at 12:45, Jachym Cepicky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> afaik it was Vasile's overview >> >> just noting >> >> j >> >> On Mon, 21 Aug 2017, 17:59 Jody Garnett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> That is perfect Jachym; at least for the beta website the "quick review" >>> is the very few edit permissions we have handed out. I like how this >>> discussion is covering what we should consider for listing "other" (or >>> "foss4g") projects in the future. >>> >>> One of the coolest things I saw at the conference was a spreadsheet of >>> open source spatial projects that Angelos had. It outlined and visualized >>> several hundred open source spatial projects (most of which I had never >>> heard of). >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jody Garnett >>> >>> On 21 August 2017 at 07:28, Jachym Cepicky <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> just noting: there can be currently "Community projects" and "Other >>>> projects" on the new OSGeo web page >>>> >>>> I agree, being "official OSGeo Community projects" requires some rules >>>> and approval process >>>> >>>> IMHO the "new proposed rules" are ok, if you want just your project >>>> appear on OSGeo Web page as "other project", it still should be >>>> peer-reviewed by some of the page administrators, but that would not make >>>> you to community project >>>> >>>> example: Yesterday I add Gisquick to new OSGeo web page >>>> http://osgeo.getinteractive.nl/projects/gisquick/ it should be listed >>>> among "Other projects", not community >>>> >>>> hope, it's ok? >>>> >>>> J >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ne 20. 8. 2017 v 1:07 odesÃlatel James Klassen <[email protected]> >>>> napsal: >>>> >>>>> I generally agree with Even's comments. >>>>> >>>>> W.r.t. Not requireing other licenses clause, I would like to add a >>>>> question about how this would apply to free software that is mostly >>>>> intended to operate with non-free data? e.g. GDAL drivers that enable >>>>> reading proprietary formats via a vendor SDK or formats that tend to only >>>>> be used with strictly licensed data or reading data from non-open >>>>> standards >>>>> based web services (where you only control the client but the client is >>>>> pointless without a running server which requires its own separate >>>>> license). >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 19, 2017 08:40, "Even Rouault" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Angelos, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for turning those discussions into a positive way forward and >>>>>> your proposal sounds good to me. A few comments below. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > I would like to propose a way forward: >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> > 1. We should *only* promote projects that are somehow affiliated >>>>>> with OSGeo >>>>>> >>>>>> > (as other Free and Open Source organizations do eg. Apache, Eclipse) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Makes sense. When you promote something on your website, you are >>>>>> somewhat responsible for it, so you must ensure that it meets some >>>>>> minimum >>>>>> criteria that are in the "OSGeo spirit" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > A proposal for *new* rules: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > * Has to have an OSI or FSF approved license and be found on the >>>>>> web in a >>>>>> >>>>>> > public place. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sounds obvious, but we should probably rephrase that "Source code is >>>>>> released with an OSI or FSF approved license and is available on the web >>>>>> in >>>>>> a public place." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I know at least one project that is Apache licensed but released only >>>>>> as binaries, which makes it not very convenient to modify :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > * Has to be useful on its own with normal data, and NOT require >>>>>> another >>>>>> >>>>>> > license to really use it >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it something that is currently required for graduation ? I don't >>>>>> see this criterion mentioned in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/project_graduation_checklist.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That one is probably tricky to write correctly. Stated like this, >>>>>> that would for example exclude a Windows executable, since to use it you >>>>>> must own a Windows license... Even if you take a Linux executable that is >>>>>> X/MIT licensed, it links against the GNU libc that is GPL licensed (but >>>>>> as >>>>>> GNU libc is considered part of the OS, there's a provision in the GPL >>>>>> license to not apply the GPL obligations to the code that links to it). >>>>>> Or >>>>>> if you take a Java program, it must run within a JVM that comes with its >>>>>> own license. Same for Python, etc... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But beyond this nitpicking, that criterion can raise more fundamental >>>>>> debates: >>>>>> >>>>>> * is the intent to exclude projects that would be open-source >>>>>> released plugins of a proprietary software for example (the plugin could >>>>>> be >>>>>> an exporter from proprietary formats/projects to open source ones for >>>>>> example) ? >>>>>> >>>>>> * Or open-source released projects that would connect to a >>>>>> proprietary server (just saw in LWN headlines that Debian is currently >>>>>> debating whether they should allow OSS software that connect to >>>>>> proprietary >>>>>> services) ? >>>>>> >>>>>> * What about a fully open-source project that connects to a >>>>>> proprietary service ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If I take the exemple of GDAL, the following situations can be found: >>>>>> >>>>>> * it is X/MIT licensed but can link to a few GPL licensed lib >>>>>> (poppler, GRASS, ...) >>>>>> >>>>>> * it can link to proprietrary licensed libs >>>>>> >>>>>> * it can interact with proprietary services that have a public API, >>>>>> but don't require linking against proprietary code >>>>>> >>>>>> * other/most parts are fully useful on their own >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So I think this question alone could deserve its own thread. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > The project should need to officially apply for being included as >>>>>> OSGeo >>>>>> >>>>>> > Community Project, by answering a questionnaire (including >>>>>> information >>>>>> >>>>>> > gathering for the web site and provide a point of contact for >>>>>> maintaining >>>>>> >>>>>> > that information in the future) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Relation question: if OSGeo website promotes a community project, >>>>>> should the website of this project (or github page if no dedicated >>>>>> website) >>>>>> links to OSGeo one ? I'm not even sure this is a requirement for a >>>>>> graduated project. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Even >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.spatialys.com >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Discuss mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
