Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] New Project.
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 Project Ownership in some form. Or is it better to set up the project standalone and just point to it. This is an option as well. I'm just trying to gage interest from the OSGEO perspective about these sorts of things. Hi Bob, I meant to comment earlier... The answers somewhat depend on what you hope to have at the end of it all. Do you aim/hope for your project to become and official OSGeo project? If so (and I think you do) then you are looking at the incubation process (http://www.osgeo.org/incubator). In that case your project needs to be obviously active and you need some good answers for the questionnaire: http://www.osgeo.org/incubator/process/application.html. They are not currently allowing new projects into incubation - i.e. projects that are just starting. What they are after are projects that have a diversity of users and developers - keys for future success. I assume you have more work to do to get the word out on your project in general so that it can find some legs outside of the City's domain. Getting your wiki up should help. The idea of not wanting to have too much overlap between projects comes up regularly in discussions I have with people, however this philosophy was not used in selecting the first batch of projects, nor has it been a key way of choosing new projects that have recently been let in to incubation. The focus has been on what strengths projects bring to the table ad past success - not so much about covering a specific portion of some grand vision for an OSGeo stack of software. As others have mentioned, there have been some great opportunities to collaborate on projects and consolidate some code because of functional overlaps between projects. In short, just because your project does something about web mapping doesn't necessarily reduce its chances for incubation. But being a new a project certainly does. The incubator committee can correct me but I haven't seen an official statement from them on the 'overlap' issue, so I assume it is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. For me, I still promote the diversity of web clients/frameworks as a strength for OSGeo. Lots of choice but also a bright future when projects start to collaborate. Best wishes, Tyler ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Free
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 commmunity list serve. It revolves around what constitutes �free� software and �open� software. I find it interesting that anyone would want to limit, define and erect boundaries between proprietary and open source intitiatives, since, in effect, we are all on the same train and riding the same rails into the future of geographic data and a society where geo-information is shared. Take the case of ORACLE and their ORACLE Database XE. From the ORACLE website it says, Oracle Database 10g Express Edition (Oracle Database XE) is an entry-level, small-footprint database based on the Oracle Database 10g Release 2 code base that�s free to develop, deploy, and distribute; fast to download; and simple to administer. Oracle Database XE is a great starter database for: �Developers working on PHP, Java, .NET, XML, and Open Source applications�DBAs who need a free, starter database for training and deployment�Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) and hardware vendors who want a starter database to distribute free of charge�Educational institutions and students who need a free database for their curriculum My take on this, is that it is free and can be freely used. In fact, I would argue that most �free� viewers on the internet are in the same category. I can foresee proprietary and open and free systemsinteroperating together in the future. In fact, I would argue that the majority of installed networked systems involving geo-data, operations and services will eventually include parts of both. I would also venture that new methodologies for creating software that involve bothproprietary and free and open software approaches will flourish. So�is your �free� more pure than my �free�? Is there a �free-o-meter� or something about? Watch out for the Python. Seriously though, why limit free and open to a box? Isn�t the objective to formulate, develop and create new approaches and strategies? - Original Message - From: Arnulf Christl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, March 5, 2007 10:51 am Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] "Free" 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 presenters afterwards for some technical help. Hi, I attended the workshop and wasn't too excited about it. Paul was sitting right beside me and I had to restrain him a few times from throwing tomatoes but else it was pretty relaxed. We started a short argument in the discussion about what Oracle's initiative is worth to the Open Source community. The result was null. Oracle is basically just trying to lure a few free-beer beta tester to hone their solution. The second strategy is have people implement Open Source on top of Oracle to help spread their proprietary licenses. Both are not OSGeo mission statements. I might develop a different opinion if Oracle would be a sustaining sponsor of OSGeo and actually invests some money. They have cash, if they spend it to sustain OSGeo, cool.The alternative to OracleXE is Oracle 10g Enterprise which is something like US$40,000 per processor. Yes, look at this. All they need to do is sell two processor licenses to be in the major league of OSGeo sponsors (aside to FunCom: we should raise the bar, when I come to think - of it we are a lot too cheap...). ((aside to myself: Counting this way the WhereGroup has generated a revenue of 400k for Oracle last year. Whoops! That wasn't planned!)) So just because of that huge step up I don't think Oracle can use OracleXE as a foothold in order to sell a commercial version. I think it's safe to say if they're offering OracleXE to the open source community, their reasons are benign, and if they're not, too bad for them because they won't be getting any sales off it. "Their" reasons are not "benign" if I understand the meaning of the word correctly as "them" in this context is a corporation and can thus not bring human affection, care or love. ((aside to myself: hope for them to not apply the term "benign" to Open Source software because it won't work either))Believe me, I'm a PostGIS user to the core, myself, but I think that the slope from commercial to open source is a slippery one Yes it is, sorry - if I may interject. The opposites in this equation are "proprietary" vs. "Open Source". The term "commercial" can be applied in many ways to Open Source based solutions, so it does not make sense to oppose Open Source to commercial but only to proprietary. Then it also
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Free
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 something about? Folks, Yes, there is a free-o-meter. If the licensing of software meetings the requirements of the open source definition then the software is free (in the open source sense). Otherwise it is just not. I have no problem with workshops about mixing free (aka open source) and proprietary software. Lots and lots of foss software works with Oracle, so show that link in action! But I don't feel the conference should have substantial content that is strictly proprietary without so much as an open source fig-leaf. The lack of understanding of what we mean by free just demonstrates the need for additional outreach by OSGeo. Best regards, -- ---+-- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [EMAIL PROTECTED] light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush| President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Free
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 than my ?free?? Is there a ?free-o- meter? or something about? Folks, Yes, there is a free-o-meter. If the licensing of software meetings the requirements of the open source definition then the software is free (in the open source sense). Otherwise it is just not. I have no problem with workshops about mixing free (aka open source) and proprietary software. Lots and lots of foss software works with Oracle, so show that link in action! But I don't feel the conference should have substantial content that is strictly proprietary without so much as an open source fig-leaf. The lack of understanding of what we mean by free just demonstrates the need for additional outreach by OSGeo. +1 See also: http://zcologia.com/news/390/deliberately-obtuse/ Free-o-meter: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html -- Allan Doyle +1.781.433.2695 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Free
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 points to his blog (below). --- So? is your ?free? more pure than my ?free?? Is there a ?free-o- meter? or something about? Folks, Yes, there is a free-o-meter. If the licensing of software meetings the requirements of the open source definition then the software is free (in the open source sense). Otherwise it is just not. I have no problem with workshops about mixing free (aka open source) and proprietary software. Lots and lots of foss software works with Oracle, so show that link in action! But I don't feel the conference should have substantial content that is strictly proprietary without so much as an open source fig-leaf. The lack of understanding of what we mean by free just demonstrates the need for additional outreach by OSGeo. +1 See also: http://zcologia.com/news/390/deliberately-obtuse/ Free-o-meter: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html -- Allan Doyle +1.781.433.2695 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 to both my humble masters who always find the right few words to formulate what me needs to make an epic of. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Free
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 although I think the free software movement is great I still don't see why it can't be thought of as a subset of open source. From my perspective, being more of an open source consumer than a producer, it seems silly to use free and open source. It creates a good deal of unnecessary confusion to those outside of the free/open source community. It seems that the free movement focuses on the philosophical differences which is fine but can't folks with different philosophies co-exist under the open source umbrella? Aren't all of the licenses that are endorsed by the FSF also endorsed by the open source community? As far as OSGeo outreach goes, should we use free and open source or just open source and explain what free means within a definition of open source? So far it seems to be inconstantly used within OSGeo. Would it make sense to think of the free 4 geo community as the radical arm of OSGeo :) PS. What is the correct term for software that doesn't cost anything but is closed (like MultiSpec and 3DEM)? Freeware? All the best, Ned ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Call for articles - OSGeo Newsletter
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 wiki page [1]. Specific committed articles are listed on the Newsletter Volume 1 wiki page [2]. There has been already been a lot of interest to contribute articles and some sections are already quite full. You are welcome to propose an article for any section, but we are specifically looking for more articles in the following categories: * News - any particularly newsworthy items you would like to pass along * Event Reports - have a conference summary that you would like to share? * Topical Studies - introduce a theoretical topic that is of general interest * Programming Tutorials - serving as an introduction to coding an application or task * Interview - conduct an interview with someone in the community * Developer Announcements - brief summaries of what your project team has been doing recently and future outlook for the project To volunteer for an article add your name and article title to the Volume 1 wiki page in the appropriate category, along with contact information. Or join the Newsletter mailing list [3] and tell us about your idea. An editor will follow-up with you to arrange delivery and timing. Articles need to be delivered by March 23st. Length can vary depending on type of article and should be discussed with the editor for your category. If you want to contribute but a particular category is full (or you need more time), you are more than welcome to add yourself to the list of articles for the subsequent volume, Volume 2 [4]. We look forward to working with you on producing a great newsletter that is of interest to everyone in our communities and beyond. Sincerely, Tyler [1] Newsletter general wiki page: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/ Newsletter [2] Newsletter Volume 1 wiki page: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/ Newsletter_Volume_1 [3] Newsletter development mailing list: http://lists.osgeo.org/ mailman/listinfo/newsletter [4] Newsletter Volume 2 (future): http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/ Newsletter_Volume_2 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Free
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 available The term open source software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licenses that FSF consider too restrictive, and there are free software licenses they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free. FSF prefer the term free software because it refers to freedom--something that the term open source does not do. Non-free software is any software that is not free. This includes semi-free software and proprietary software. Semi-free software is software that is not free, but comes with permission for individuals to use, copy, distribute, and modify (including distribution of modified versions) for non-profit purposes. PGP is an example of a semi-free program. Proprietary software is software that is not free or semi-free. Its use, redistribution or modification is prohibited, or requires you to ask for permission, or is restricted so much that you effectively can't do it freely The term freeware has no clear accepted definition, but it is commonly used for packages which permit redistribution but not modification (and their source code is not available). These packages are not free software, so please don't use freeware to refer to free software. Shareware is software which comes with permission for people to redistribute copies, but says that anyone who continues to use a copy is required to pay a license fee. Class Dismissed P.s. Taken from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html enjoy ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Free
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 from a licensing point-of-view, if not an advocacy point-of-view. On Mar 5, 2007, at 14:33, Ned Horning wrote: The FSF can't exist under the Open Source umbrella because they feel some Open Source does not guarantee Freedom over time. The Open Source people can't exist under the Free umbrella because they feel the GPL and its variants are too restrictive. Okay, this is the part I don't get. What part of the FSF can't be included as open source? To me this sounds like a square saying it can't be a rectangle since all of its side have the same length. I think of open source as embracing a broad spectrum of licenses including all of those supported by the FSF. Should I not be looking at this from a licensing perspective? I stand corrected by Paul from a license point of view. But I believe that licenses such as the MIT license http://opensource.org/licenses/ mit-license.php which are non-viral in that they do not require that derived works themselves be open source are philosophically at odds with the Free Software Foundation's ideals. Thus to me Free is not a subset of Open Source because the latter does not guarantee Freedom in perpetuity. That is what makes people think of FSF as a bunch of radical communists, but I think they are pretty staunch defenders of a freedom that we would be loathe to lose. Allan -- Allan Doyle +1.781.433.2695 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Free
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 Department of Main Roads, Queensland Transport or Maritime Safety Queensland, or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the message from your computer. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Free
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). --- So? is your ?free? more pure than my ?free?? Is there a ?free-o-meter? or something about? Folks, Yes, there is a free-o-meter. If the licensing of software meetings the requirements of the open source definition then the software is free (in the open source sense). Otherwise it is just not. I have no problem with workshops about mixing free (aka open source) and proprietary software. Lots and lots of foss software works with Oracle, so show that link in action! But I don't feel the conference should have substantial content that is strictly proprietary without so much as an open source fig-leaf. The lack of understanding of what we mean by free just demonstrates the need for additional outreach by OSGeo. Best regards, +1. I came to OSGeo because I wanted FREE (as in freedom) solutions for my geospatial needs. I want to be able to deliver FREE (as in freedom) solutions to my clients. Free as in beer is nice, but free as in speech is mandatory for me. That doesn't mean I won't inter-operate with proprietary solutions, or aren't interested in finding out how to inter-operate; I am interested. Inter-operation between free and proprietary solutions is a reality. But it does mean I won't advocate for a proprietary solution. If that's what suits a clients needs best, then I will point them to someone who can give it to them. I won't. I've had too much experience with proprietary solutions and the pain that causes to want to go there again or to put someone else there. I've had too much experience with FOSS to ignore the benefits it brings. To bring this back to the topic of the thread, if the oracle demo is just showcasing a proprietary solution (free as in beer or otherwise) that happens to use a few token free components, then I'm not interested. If it shows how to inter-operate existing proprietary systems with FOSS systems and helps me put my clients back in control of their own systems, then I'm interested. The main focus of the conf though, should be on a fully free stack. Without that, we are just pissing in the wind if you will pardon the expression. Regards, Tim Bowden ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
