[grassuer at grass.itc.it is replaced by the osgeo address, no need to double-CC]
Hi Ravi, I suggest you move this discussion over to the osgeo "discuss" mailing list to capture a wider FOSS4G audience. Specifically, the OSSIM people might have something to say about the imagery claims; deegree, gvSIG, and MapBender might have something to say about SDI; and the *server crowd about support for OGC standards; etc. > ""At a later stage the some of the proprietary software need > to be purchased."" Depends on how specialized the need and small the niche is. But even then, often it is cheaper to hire a programmer to add the missing feature than it is to license something. then again, often it is not. If you put a requirement on one tiny feature you can ensure that any particular software of your choosing will be the only one out there that provides it. And the possible need to purchase one bit of software for one need sometime in the future does not disqualify an entire other software development model from being used for other or more day-to-day needs. > ""It is a well known fact that ..."" there's a red-flag for you, just a lame rhetorical device intended to shut down debate. If you can prove that such a strong claim is clear hyperbole, it also casts doubt on everything else they say.. helpful to read Carl Sagan: http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html another thing to consider is who is losing their role as a middle-man and gatekeeper if FOSS is used, and what role they may have as both the existing go-to consultants making these recommendations and also as the local reseller of the software they are recommending; profiting off the markup/sole supplier/ "certified" consultancy/etc ... can a classic conflict of interest be shown? even if not, it bears review. if so it's not that uncommon, but it must be clearly disclosed in any review they provide. regards, Hamish _______________________________________________ grass-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
