[OSGeo-Discuss] distributing read-only vector files?
Before anything else, let me introduce our dilemma. We are a non-profit geo-research institution. In many cases we produce geospatial datasets no other local institution can create in my country at the moment. What we create are sometimes benchmark info useful to various research and policy initiatives. At the moment we have two broad users the public (we provide free download of pdf maps) and special interest group (requesting for GIS data). We always want our datasets to be used by other geoshop. However, we have several concerns regarding the release of GIS data: 1. Securing data integrity - once released we cannot guarantee that the data will be distributed from other sources with alterations/changes. Some of this data may contain critical info that if used (coming from altered data), our institution might be blamed. 2. Ensuring corrections will be reported back to us for data enhancement. 3. Ensuring non-commercial use of the data I'm sure these concerns are not unique to us but also common to other institutions. I am hoping we can discuss options on how we can resolve the above concerns in areas both technical and institutional policy. Any ideas? -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] distributing read-only vector files?
Hi Maning, Normally many of those problem are solved by issuing metadata along with datasets. You can state there clearly who the provider and distributor is and what limitations of the use and distribution have, also the version, last update, quality etc. This much more organizational solution, where I think you could be safe from any blames - after all, people are free to contact the provider or distributor mentioned in the metadata. You can also put a license of this data, stating the range of use and obligating any changes or updates to be reported to your institution. Best regards: Raf Dr. Rafal Wawer K.U.Leuven RD Division SADL (Spatial Application Division) Celestijnenlaan 200e bus 2224 BE-3001 Leuven-Heverlee Belgium tel. 0032 16 329731 -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of maning sambale Sent: 03 November 2009 13:59 To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] distributing read-only vector files? Before anything else, let me introduce our dilemma. We are a non-profit geo-research institution. In many cases we produce geospatial datasets no other local institution can create in my country at the moment. What we create are sometimes benchmark info useful to various research and policy initiatives. At the moment we have two broad users the public (we provide free download of pdf maps) and special interest group (requesting for GIS data). We always want our datasets to be used by other geoshop. However, we have several concerns regarding the release of GIS data: 1. Securing data integrity - once released we cannot guarantee that the data will be distributed from other sources with alterations/changes. Some of this data may contain critical info that if used (coming from altered data), our institution might be blamed. 2. Ensuring corrections will be reported back to us for data enhancement. 3. Ensuring non-commercial use of the data I'm sure these concerns are not unique to us but also common to other institutions. I am hoping we can discuss options on how we can resolve the above concerns in areas both technical and institutional policy. Any ideas? -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] distributing read-only vector files?
Some sort of release or disclaimer might be a route that you want to take. Basically something that states the purpose of the dataset, and that you make no warranty as to the correctness, that resale is prohibited, etc. Get it in writing that the parties who receive the data understand what your stipulations of use are. Zachary -Original Message- From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of maning sambale Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:59 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] distributing read-only vector files? Before anything else, let me introduce our dilemma. We are a non-profit geo-research institution. In many cases we produce geospatial datasets no other local institution can create in my country at the moment. What we create are sometimes benchmark info useful to various research and policy initiatives. At the moment we have two broad users the public (we provide free download of pdf maps) and special interest group (requesting for GIS data). We always want our datasets to be used by other geoshop. However, we have several concerns regarding the release of GIS data: 1. Securing data integrity - once released we cannot guarantee that the data will be distributed from other sources with alterations/changes. Some of this data may contain critical info that if used (coming from altered data), our institution might be blamed. 2. Ensuring corrections will be reported back to us for data enhancement. 3. Ensuring non-commercial use of the data I'm sure these concerns are not unique to us but also common to other institutions. I am hoping we can discuss options on how we can resolve the above concerns in areas both technical and institutional policy. Any ideas? -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] distributing read-only vector files?
Look at the section called, Copyright Information for use with Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO data at http://external.opengis.org/twiki_public/bin/view/ClimateChallenge2009/ScenarioAusBOM for an example of how the Australian government has approached the situation. --- Raj On Nov 3, at 7:58 AM, maning sambale wrote: Before anything else, let me introduce our dilemma. We are a non-profit geo-research institution. In many cases we produce geospatial datasets no other local institution can create in my country at the moment. What we create are sometimes benchmark info useful to various research and policy initiatives. At the moment we have two broad users the public (we provide free download of pdf maps) and special interest group (requesting for GIS data). We always want our datasets to be used by other geoshop. However, we have several concerns regarding the release of GIS data: 1. Securing data integrity - once released we cannot guarantee that the data will be distributed from other sources with alterations/changes. Some of this data may contain critical info that if used (coming from altered data), our institution might be blamed. 2. Ensuring corrections will be reported back to us for data enhancement. 3. Ensuring non-commercial use of the data I'm sure these concerns are not unique to us but also common to other institutions. I am hoping we can discuss options on how we can resolve the above concerns in areas both technical and institutional policy. Any ideas? -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] distributing read-only vector files?
maning sambale wrote: Before anything else, let me introduce our dilemma. We are a non-profit geo-research institution. In many cases we produce geospatial datasets no other local institution can create in my country at the moment. What we create are sometimes benchmark info useful to various research and policy initiatives. At the moment we have two broad users the public (we provide free download of pdf maps) and special interest group (requesting for GIS data). We always want our datasets to be used by other geoshop. However, we have several concerns regarding the release of GIS data: 1. Securing data integrity - once released we cannot guarantee that the data will be distributed from other sources with I think the best you can do here while trying to be relatively open is to publish your data and provide md5 sums of the data or the tar balls. If anyone is concerned about the source of the data or the correctness of the data then they can easily verify it from your distribution web site. alterations/changes. Some of this data may contain critical info that if used (coming from altered data), our institution might be blamed. There is nothing stopping someone from making up false data without using your data and publishing it as your be your data. Again making it clear the the data is available only from your site and providing an easy way to verify its correctness makes it easy to to people to validate against it. 2. Ensuring corrections will be reported back to us for data enhancement. The best you can do here is have users sign a contract and audit them if needed. This is not a technology issue. 3. Ensuring non-commercial use of the data This has to be done via contract and legal obligations of the users. This is not a technology issue. I'm sure these concerns are not unique to us but also common to other institutions. I am hoping we can discuss options on how we can resolve the above concerns in areas both technical and institutional policy. Any ideas? If you are trying to be open, then be open! Look at OpenStreetMap and how they do it. They have a page of license violations also. If you want to be closed and controlling, then write an application the manages all these issues and provides whatever GIS tools your potential clients need and have it run off of encrypted data, and fear the day when someone hacks you code and frees your data. Another alternative might be to build an application framework like google maps where you keep all your secret data on the server and only allow your users to interact with the server. My $0.02, -Steve W ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] distributing read-only vector files?
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 08:58:58PM +0800, maning sambale wrote: Before anything else, let me introduce our dilemma. We are a non-profit geo-research institution. In many cases we produce geospatial datasets no other local institution can create in my country at the moment. What we create are sometimes benchmark info useful to various research and policy initiatives. At the moment we have two broad users the public (we provide free download of pdf maps) and special interest group (requesting for GIS data). We always want our datasets to be used by other geoshop. However, we have several concerns regarding the release of GIS data: 1. Securing data integrity - once released we cannot guarantee that the data will be distributed from other sources with alterations/changes. Some of this data may contain critical info that if used (coming from altered data), our institution might be blamed. 2. Ensuring corrections will be reported back to us for data enhancement. 3. Ensuring non-commercial use of the data I'm sure these concerns are not unique to us but also common to other institutions. I am hoping we can discuss options on how we can resolve the above concerns in areas both technical and institutional policy. My advice would be Figure out how to deal with the fact that these are not going to happen. If you are distributing data that people care about altering, modifying, etc. then there is no practical way to prevent them from doing so. A license agreement of some kind can keep 'honest people honest', but no means, technical or otherwise, will prevent people from distributing data that they want to distribute. Additionally, these types of restrictions typically serve to limit the usefulness of the data -- the more restricted a dataset is, the more likely you are to block legitimate usage unintentionally while 'protecting' the data. That said, the last restriction is well-addressed by Creative Commons licenses. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open Location Services
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: P Kishor wrote: On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: David, LISAsoft has a java implementation of OpenLS which we would like to Open Source if we can find a sponsor to cover our packaging costs. What kind of costs are packaging costs, and what do they amount to generally, and for OpenLS, more specifically? P Kishor, As you are probably aware, just dumping code into sourceforge is not an effective way to start a successful Open Source project. There needs to be suitable technical documentation, development processes documentation, web pages set up, issue trackers put in place, access writes granted to developers, and then have at least one champion sit on email lists supporting new users. That is what I consider packaging costs. The above makes sense, but honestly, I had never heard of this until now, and I have been tinkering with open source for almost a decade now. Most open source projects seemed organic to me. Someone had an itch, they scratched it, they put it out, and the project either gathered traction, or it died. Seems like my scholarship of open source has been lacking in this aspect hugely. I wonder if I can find out the packaging costs of other projects, for example, what was the packaging cost for MapServer, or GeoServer, or OpenLayers, or Perl/Python, etc. Is this routine practice, or is this a consideration only when a private company wants to put its code into open source? If the packaging costs are a consideration in the latter case, does anyone know if there were packaging costs involved when Autodesk converted MapGuide to open source? If yes, how much were they? If Autodesk didn't get paid for it, but instead, did a writedown of some sort on their balance sheet, I wonder if I could be privy to that information? Another question -- if you don't put the code into open source, are you somehow recouping this cost? In other words, does putting the code into open source have any opportunity costs? Asked another way, if you did just dump the code into sourceforge, besides the potentially legitimate worry that the project might just die, would you incur any other cost? If there is a serious desire, and potential sponsor for this functionality, then I can talk with the team and work out the costs of Open Sourcing. (I'll also need to put together a business case to our management for the value we gain from Open Sourcing over Closed Source for this product), but I'll take that on separately. If you have a potential sponsor for this activity, please let me know, and we can look into it further. No, I don't have any sponsor. I am a rather indigent academic/developer/activist with barely funds to keep myself afloat. I am, however, still very curious about the magnitude of these packaging costs. What are we talking about here? A few hundred, a few thousand, a few tens of thousands, say, Euros (considering even Kanye West doesn't want greenbacks anymore). You say above, we can look into it further. Does that imply that you haven't yet calculated these packaging costs, but have a sense that they might be substantial? At the very least, because of this thread, I have now been made aware of a potential aspect of open source about which I had absolutely no idea until now. -- Cameron Shorter Geospatial Systems Architect Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050 Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254 Think Globally, Fix Locally Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source http://www.lisasoft.com -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu --- Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science === Sent from Madison, Wisconsin, United States ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] distributing read-only vector files?
Thanks! These are all good suggestions. If you are trying to be open, then be open! Look at OpenStreetMap and how they do it. They have a page of license violations also. I know about OSM and I consider myself an active contributor in my side of the hemisphere. On a personal capacity, I come from the let's open geodata camp. The work environment is another issue, culture needs to be changed (you know what I mean). fear the day when someone hacks you code and frees your data. I very well know this can happen, but such a proposition to the management isn't encouraging. We need to make some compromises for the moment. -- cheers, maning -- Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open Location Services
P Kishor wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: As you are probably aware, just dumping code into sourceforge is not an effective way to start a successful Open Source project. The above makes sense, but honestly, I had never heard of this until now, and I have been tinkering with open source for almost a decade now. Most open source projects seemed organic to me. Someone had an itch, they scratched it, they put it out, and the project either gathered traction, or it died. Seems like my scholarship of open source has been lacking in this aspect hugely. Actually, the history of successful open source projects (long-lived, widely adopted, well supported by a broad community) is very different than having an itch to scratch. I've seen several major development paths for successful projects: 1. Funded research project that gets widely adopted. Open sourced as a way to maintain availability and support. Classic example: Apache (started as the NCSA web daemon). 2. Variant of the above: Project that starts as a research project ends up as a hybrid open-source/commercial enterprise. Classic examples: Sendmail, PostgreSQL. 3. Internally funded project - by a university or corporate team - open sourced as a way to reduce support costs and/or widen adoption. Generally retains some ties to originators. Examples: Sympa (mailing list manager funded by a consortium of French universities), Erlang, Zope. 4. The jury is still out on the various projects that have been developed for purely commercial reasons, with an open source (community) version released as both a way to broaden the market and to reduce development/support costs by leveraging outside contributors (e.g., OpenSolaris, Aptana Studio, ...). The virtualization space seems to be a place where the uncertainties associated with this model are playing out (e.g., would you stake your business on Xen or VirtualBox?). Not sure how I'd characterize the various BSD unix varients, and Linux is a clear outlier - that may well be as close to an itch to scratch that succeeded as there is. What these all have in common is that: i. somebody and/or some organization had a serious internal reason for developing a piece of software, and in almost all cases had a source of financial support for the work ii. there are serious business reasons for open sourcing the code - broadening a user base, reducing development and support costs, etc. - and serious attention was/is paid to organization and management issues Miles Fidelman -- Miles R. Fidelman, Director of Government Programs Traverse Technologies 145 Tremont Street, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02111 mfidel...@traversetechnologies.com 857-362-8314 www.traversetechnologies.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open Location Services
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@traversetechnologies.com wrote: P Kishor wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: As you are probably aware, just dumping code into sourceforge is not an effective way to start a successful Open Source project. The above makes sense, but honestly, I had never heard of this until now, and I have been tinkering with open source for almost a decade now. Most open source projects seemed organic to me. Someone had an itch, they scratched it, they put it out, and the project either gathered traction, or it died. Seems like my scholarship of open source has been lacking in this aspect hugely. Actually, the history of successful open source projects (long-lived, widely adopted, well supported by a broad community) is very different than having an itch to scratch. Well said. I apologize for unintentionally making it seem that I was conflating itch to scratch with lack of funds. Not so. Larry Wall was gainfully employed when he developed Perl and released it into the wilds. That is well documented. And, as you note below, variations on this model abound. Our own Steve Lime, bless his heart, was and is gainfully employed when he developed and continues to develop MapServer. The nice folks at DM Solutions and Refractions built a successful business around open source, releasing and benefitting from their largesse. That said, the main theme of my enquiry still remains -- I had never heard of packaging costs until now, and am curious about quantifying them. Imagine that I am a potential sponsor. You have developed magic software for your own company. A few users are expressing interest in that software. You write to the user list that you will put that software into open source were your packaging costs met. The following questions -- 1. How much are we talking about here? 2. Of course, any price is worth it if someone is willing to pay it, but how to determine if the amount being asked in #1 above is commensurate with the value of the product being considered, and is in line with the value of similar products? 3. If no one comes up with the packaging costs, would you not put it into open source, or would you still put it, but just dump the code into sourceforge and let Darwin take care of it? 4. If you do put it in open source without any packaging costs being paid to you, would you be losing out on any particular revenue other than the time spent to put it into open source? I've seen several major development paths for successful projects: 1. Funded research project that gets widely adopted. Open sourced as a way to maintain availability and support. Classic example: Apache (started as the NCSA web daemon). 2. Variant of the above: Project that starts as a research project ends up as a hybrid open-source/commercial enterprise. Classic examples: Sendmail, PostgreSQL. 3. Internally funded project - by a university or corporate team - open sourced as a way to reduce support costs and/or widen adoption. Generally retains some ties to originators. Examples: Sympa (mailing list manager funded by a consortium of French universities), Erlang, Zope. 4. The jury is still out on the various projects that have been developed for purely commercial reasons, with an open source (community) version released as both a way to broaden the market and to reduce development/support costs by leveraging outside contributors (e.g., OpenSolaris, Aptana Studio, ...). The virtualization space seems to be a place where the uncertainties associated with this model are playing out (e.g., would you stake your business on Xen or VirtualBox?). Not sure how I'd characterize the various BSD unix varients, and Linux is a clear outlier - that may well be as close to an itch to scratch that succeeded as there is. What these all have in common is that: i. somebody and/or some organization had a serious internal reason for developing a piece of software, and in almost all cases had a source of financial support for the work ii. there are serious business reasons for open sourcing the code - broadening a user base, reducing development and support costs, etc. - and serious attention was/is paid to organization and management issues Miles Fidelman -- Miles R. Fidelman, Director of Government Programs Traverse Technologies 145 Tremont Street, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02111 mfidel...@traversetechnologies.com 857-362-8314 www.traversetechnologies.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open Location Services
P Kishor wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: P Kishor wrote: On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: David, LISAsoft has a java implementation of OpenLS which we would like to Open Source if we can find a sponsor to cover our packaging costs. What kind of costs are packaging costs, and what do they amount to generally, and for OpenLS, more specifically? P Kishor, As you are probably aware, just dumping code into sourceforge is not an effective way to start a successful Open Source project. There needs to be suitable technical documentation, development processes documentation, web pages set up, issue trackers put in place, access writes granted to developers, and then have at least one champion sit on email lists supporting new users. That is what I consider packaging costs. The above makes sense, but honestly, I had never heard of this until now, and I have been tinkering with open source for almost a decade now. Most open source projects seemed organic to me. Someone had an itch, they scratched it, they put it out, and the project either gathered traction, or it died. Seems like my scholarship of open source has been lacking in this aspect hugely. Hi Puneet, I have to run now, so I don't have time for a long answer, but I just wanted to add that Cameron is right... unfortunately it's not as simple as setting up a project on sourceforge even if it may seem to be that way from the user's perspective. I have been through the process of open sourcing projects several times over the last 10 years, and did it again a few weeks ago with the GeoPrisma launch. I think we are getting better at it as we gain experience, and can confirm that those packaging costs and planning requirements are real and need to be taken into account for a successful project launch. Another aspect to consider that I don't think was mentioned is to balance the pros and cons of open sourcing and not doing it on your own business and on the project/product itself. Daniel -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open Location Services
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Daniel Morissette dmorisse...@mapgears.com wrote: P Kishor wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: P Kishor wrote: On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: David, LISAsoft has a java implementation of OpenLS which we would like to Open Source if we can find a sponsor to cover our packaging costs. What kind of costs are packaging costs, and what do they amount to generally, and for OpenLS, more specifically? P Kishor, As you are probably aware, just dumping code into sourceforge is not an effective way to start a successful Open Source project. There needs to be suitable technical documentation, development processes documentation, web pages set up, issue trackers put in place, access writes granted to developers, and then have at least one champion sit on email lists supporting new users. That is what I consider packaging costs. The above makes sense, but honestly, I had never heard of this until now, and I have been tinkering with open source for almost a decade now. Most open source projects seemed organic to me. Someone had an itch, they scratched it, they put it out, and the project either gathered traction, or it died. Seems like my scholarship of open source has been lacking in this aspect hugely. Hi Puneet, I have to run now, so I don't have time for a long answer, but I just wanted to add that Cameron is right... unfortunately it's not as simple as setting up a project on sourceforge even if it may seem to be that way from the user's perspective. I have been through the process of open sourcing projects several times over the last 10 years, and did it again a few weeks ago with the GeoPrisma launch. I think we are getting better at it as we gain experience, and can confirm that those packaging costs and planning requirements are real and need to be taken into account for a successful project launch. Another aspect to consider that I don't think was mentioned is to balance the pros and cons of open sourcing and not doing it on your own business and on the project/product itself. Based on Daniel's response, a thought occurred to me -- my inquiry in this thread might be seen as an attack on the concept of packaging costs. I want to put this disclaimer forward, even though I thought I had made my intentions clear in my first email -- I am not at all antagonistic or in any way attacking the concept of packaging costs in general or LISASoft in particular. I am merely curious. I had never heard of packaging costs until this thread, so obviously, my scholarship of open source, particularly its economics and motivation, has been seriously lacking, and I need to correct it. And, what better way to do that than to ask the person who is asking for packaging costs in the first place. 1. How much are we talking about here? 2. Of course, any price is worth it if someone is willing to pay it, but how to determine if the amount being asked in #1 above is commensurate with the value of the product being considered, and is in line with the value of similar products? 3. If no one comes up with the packaging costs, would you not put it into open source, or would you still put it, but just dump the code into sourceforge and let Darwin take care of it? 4. If you do put it in open source without any packaging costs being paid to you, would you be losing out on any particular revenue other than the time spent to put it into open source? Daniel -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ -- Puneet Kishor http://www.punkish.org Carbon Model http://carbonmodel.org Charter Member, Open Source Geospatial Foundation http://www.osgeo.org Science Commons Fellow, http://sciencecommons.org/about/whoweare/kishor Nelson Institute, UW-Madison http://www.nelson.wisc.edu --- Assertions are politics; backing up assertions with evidence is science === Sent from Madison, Wisconsin, United States ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open Location Services
Hi there, That said, the main theme of my enquiry still remains -- I had never heard of packaging costs until now, and am curious about quantifying them. The term «packaging cost» is not really representative of the actual work it includes. We are in fact speaking of code and project quality. In that sense, packaging cost are pareto's principle's 20% of a project. These 20% represent the work on the project which is never done for internal projects, as it takes a lot of time compared to what it's paying off. This may includes : - technical documentation (as the project is internally developed, knowledge is available by asking individuals) - end user documentation (sell training and expertise instead of writing non-paid end user documentation) - code cleaning (while it's closed and intern, who cares about clean code ?) - code documentation (ask your colleague if you want to know what «UGLY HACK» really means...) - annoying little bug fixing (every team developer knows the non-documented workaround) - setting up a dev environment (svn, ftp stuff, managing rights, takes more effort for intern needs than an open dev env) - setting up a project home website with basic information (never done for intern project if the product is not directly sold) - setting up a support infrastructure and team (mailing list, specific persons in charge... done informally when intern) - ... If we were in an ideal world, all of this would be done for long even for small internal project. But in our real world, those points are often abandoned along the road of good intentions. It really depends on your internal project quality management. I've seen project with all the above done and well done, and other where none of it ever existed. Successful Open Source projects however strongly need those points to be sure to gather a community of users, developers, and be able to reach a stable point where the project live by itself without perfusion. As to answer your specific questions : Imagine that I am a potential sponsor. You have developed magic software for your own company. A few users are expressing interest in that software. You write to the user list that you will put that software into open source were your packaging costs met. The following questions -- 1. How much are we talking about here? To stay with pareto's principle, i'd say around 20% of the initial project's price. It depends on the current quality of the code and project management type and infrastructur though. The closer it is from the «opensource way» of doing thing, the less these cost will be. 3. If no one comes up with the packaging costs, would you not put it into open source, or would you still put it, but just dump the code into sourceforge and let Darwin take care of it? As far as a (my one at least) company is concerned, the idea is generally «open source quality software or don't», as bad code is bad image for the company. That said, there may sometimes be legal reason leading to open sourcing code without «packaging» it at all. 4. If you do put it in open source without any packaging costs being paid to you, would you be losing out on any particular revenue other than the time spent to put it into open source? Time spent to put it into open source is time not spent on other profit-making project. Then other revenue can be lost due to the opensourcing itself of the project, but this is another subject. As to answer to miles about FLOSS project typology, I fully agree with him. There also is the kind of project written by an individual on its spare time, with high-standard quality code and infrastructures, which evolves, grows and turns into a successful big opensource project. Well, I'm still looking for examples, but I'm sure we can find some :) vincent ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open Location Services
Puneet, I don't have a specific answer for How Much LISAsoft's OpenLS code costs to Open Source yet, I'd need to do the analysis, and so I'll talk in general terms, based on my experience with other projects. 1. For LISAsoft, Just dumping code into Sourceforge is usually not an option. Our reputation is based upon our understanding of Open Source and producing quality software, and it would be detrimental to our image, and hence our future job prospects to do a poor job. 2. For simple projects, Open Sourcing can easily at least a few weeks, to put processes and web sites in place. But the bigger cost is growing and supporting the community, maybe one person day per week, for the rest of the year. I heard that Autodesk decided to provide a major re-write of their MapGuide Open Source software before Open Sourcing, which would likely have cost them man months, probably man years. 3. Yes, LISAsoft will miss out on opportunity costs because we derive commercial advantage by owning an OpenLS codebase. At the end of the day, our decision will be financial. Can we make more money by Open Sourcing or not. At LISAsoft we support both Open and Closed source business models, depending on which makes better business sense. P Kishor wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Daniel Morissette dmorisse...@mapgears.com wrote: P Kishor wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: P Kishor wrote: On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: David, LISAsoft has a java implementation of OpenLS which we would like to Open Source if we can find a sponsor to cover our packaging costs. What kind of costs are packaging costs, and what do they amount to generally, and for OpenLS, more specifically? P Kishor, As you are probably aware, just dumping code into sourceforge is not an effective way to start a successful Open Source project. There needs to be suitable technical documentation, development processes documentation, web pages set up, issue trackers put in place, access writes granted to developers, and then have at least one champion sit on email lists supporting new users. That is what I consider packaging costs. The above makes sense, but honestly, I had never heard of this until now, and I have been tinkering with open source for almost a decade now. Most open source projects seemed organic to me. Someone had an itch, they scratched it, they put it out, and the project either gathered traction, or it died. Seems like my scholarship of open source has been lacking in this aspect hugely. Hi Puneet, I have to run now, so I don't have time for a long answer, but I just wanted to add that Cameron is right... unfortunately it's not as simple as setting up a project on sourceforge even if it may seem to be that way from the user's perspective. I have been through the process of open sourcing projects several times over the last 10 years, and did it again a few weeks ago with the GeoPrisma launch. I think we are getting better at it as we gain experience, and can confirm that those packaging costs and planning requirements are real and need to be taken into account for a successful project launch. Another aspect to consider that I don't think was mentioned is to balance the pros and cons of open sourcing and not doing it on your own business and on the project/product itself. Based on Daniel's response, a thought occurred to me -- my inquiry in this thread might be seen as an attack on the concept of packaging costs. I want to put this disclaimer forward, even though I thought I had made my intentions clear in my first email -- I am not at all antagonistic or in any way attacking the concept of packaging costs in general or LISASoft in particular. I am merely curious. I had never heard of packaging costs until this thread, so obviously, my scholarship of open source, particularly its economics and motivation, has been seriously lacking, and I need to correct it. And, what better way to do that than to ask the person who is asking for packaging costs in the first place. 1. How much are we talking about here? 2. Of course, any price is worth it if someone is willing to pay it, but how to determine if the amount being asked in #1 above is commensurate with the value of the product being considered, and is in line with the value of similar products? 3. If no one comes up with the packaging costs, would you not put it into open source, or would you still put it, but just dump the code into sourceforge and let Darwin take care of it? 4. If you do put it in open source without any packaging costs being paid to you, would you be losing out on any particular revenue other than the time spent to put it into open source? Daniel -- Daniel Morissette http://www.mapgears.com/ -- Cameron Shorter Geospatial Systems
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open Location Services
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: Puneet, I don't have a specific answer for How Much LISAsoft's OpenLS code costs to Open Source yet, I'd need to do the analysis, and so I'll talk in general terms, based on my experience with other projects. Fair enough. If and when you do finish your analysis, I would be very interested in knowing the cost of OpenLS code. Knowing how much is something is the first step in determining whether or not it is worth it to me, so I would like to know what its sale price is. 1. For LISAsoft, Just dumping code into Sourceforge is usually not an option. Our reputation is based upon our understanding of Open Source and producing quality software, and it would be detrimental to our image, and hence our future job prospects to do a poor job. Very understandable. Of course, the above implies that the code is not ready to be put (replacing the value laden term dumped with the more benign put) into Soureforge. I am assuming you have already paying customers for it though (more on that below), so they have probably already put a price on it, and considered it of worthy quality. 2. For simple projects, Open Sourcing can easily at least a few weeks, to put processes and web sites in place. But the bigger cost is growing and supporting the community, maybe one person day per week, for the rest of the year. I heard that Autodesk decided to provide a major re-write of their MapGuide Open Source software before Open Sourcing, which would likely have cost them man months, probably man years. What if you had a website? Hypothetically speaking, what if OSGeo said that they would provide the server and repo and mailing list, etc.? Wouldn't that take off some of the packaging cost? 3. Yes, LISAsoft will miss out on opportunity costs because we derive commercial advantage by owning an OpenLS codebase. Ahhh! So, there is a perceived advantage to keeping the source closed, which kinda works counter to the perceived advantage of opening up the source -- the general assumption is that, if successful, open sourcing will bring more attention, rapid development and improvement, more bugs being flushed out, more awareness, hence, possibly, more customers, yadda yadda. At the end of the day, our decision will be financial. Can we make more money by Open Sourcing or not. At LISAsoft we support both Open and Closed source business models, depending on which makes better business sense. No doubt. I find it fascinating that closed source business models make sense in a primarily open source world (whereby world, I mean the OSGeo world). I just presumed that as far as source code was concerned, the primary mindset and approach of everyone would be that open was better than closed. Seems like there are, possibly many, cases where this is not so. There are a couple of things I have learned from this thread -- 1. Internal, somewhat mature, projects, owned by a commercial entity, that are currently closed source throw up a lot more thinking before they can be made open source; 2. This is something I just had never thought about. I need to study this a lot more, in greater detail and breadth. Many thanks Cameron, for your patience and answers. P Kishor wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Daniel Morissette dmorisse...@mapgears.com wrote: P Kishor wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: P Kishor wrote: On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: David, LISAsoft has a java implementation of OpenLS which we would like to Open Source if we can find a sponsor to cover our packaging costs. What kind of costs are packaging costs, and what do they amount to generally, and for OpenLS, more specifically? P Kishor, As you are probably aware, just dumping code into sourceforge is not an effective way to start a successful Open Source project. There needs to be suitable technical documentation, development processes documentation, web pages set up, issue trackers put in place, access writes granted to developers, and then have at least one champion sit on email lists supporting new users. That is what I consider packaging costs. The above makes sense, but honestly, I had never heard of this until now, and I have been tinkering with open source for almost a decade now. Most open source projects seemed organic to me. Someone had an itch, they scratched it, they put it out, and the project either gathered traction, or it died. Seems like my scholarship of open source has been lacking in this aspect hugely. Hi Puneet, I have to run now, so I don't have time for a long answer, but I just wanted to add that Cameron is right... unfortunately it's not as simple as setting up a project on sourceforge even if it may seem to be that way from the user's perspective. I have been through the process of
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Open Location Services
If you have big commercial customers I'd approach them. If they're heavily invested in your software then they could see the value potentially. I understand what you're saying tho. Most of the organically-grown projects are those that started as open source and don't compare well to closed2open conversions. On 11/3/09, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: Puneet, I don't have a specific answer for How Much LISAsoft's OpenLS code costs to Open Source yet, I'd need to do the analysis, and so I'll talk in general terms, based on my experience with other projects. 1. For LISAsoft, Just dumping code into Sourceforge is usually not an option. Our reputation is based upon our understanding of Open Source and producing quality software, and it would be detrimental to our image, and hence our future job prospects to do a poor job. 2. For simple projects, Open Sourcing can easily at least a few weeks, to put processes and web sites in place. But the bigger cost is growing and supporting the community, maybe one person day per week, for the rest of the year. I heard that Autodesk decided to provide a major re-write of their MapGuide Open Source software before Open Sourcing, which would likely have cost them man months, probably man years. 3. Yes, LISAsoft will miss out on opportunity costs because we derive commercial advantage by owning an OpenLS codebase. At the end of the day, our decision will be financial. Can we make more money by Open Sourcing or not. At LISAsoft we support both Open and Closed source business models, depending on which makes better business sense. P Kishor wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Daniel Morissette dmorisse...@mapgears.com wrote: P Kishor wrote: On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: P Kishor wrote: On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Cameron Shorter cameron.shor...@gmail.com wrote: David, LISAsoft has a java implementation of OpenLS which we would like to Open Source if we can find a sponsor to cover our packaging costs. What kind of costs are packaging costs, and what do they amount to generally, and for OpenLS, more specifically? P Kishor, As you are probably aware, just dumping code into sourceforge is not an effective way to start a successful Open Source project. There needs to be suitable technical documentation, development processes documentation, web pages set up, issue trackers put in place, access writes granted to developers, and then have at least one champion sit on email lists supporting new users. That is what I consider packaging costs. The above makes sense, but honestly, I had never heard of this until now, and I have been tinkering with open source for almost a decade now. Most open source projects seemed organic to me. Someone had an itch, they scratched it, they put it out, and the project either gathered traction, or it died. Seems like my scholarship of open source has been lacking in this aspect hugely. Hi Puneet, I have to run now, so I don't have time for a long answer, but I just wanted to add that Cameron is right... unfortunately it's not as simple as setting up a project on sourceforge even if it may seem to be that way from the user's perspective. I have been through the process of open sourcing projects several times over the last 10 years, and did it again a few weeks ago with the GeoPrisma launch. I think we are getting better at it as we gain experience, and can confirm that those packaging costs and planning requirements are real and need to be taken into account for a successful project launch. Another aspect to consider that I don't think was mentioned is to balance the pros and cons of open sourcing and not doing it on your own business and on the project/product itself. Based on Daniel's response, a thought occurred to me -- my inquiry in this thread might be seen as an attack on the concept of packaging costs. I want to put this disclaimer forward, even though I thought I had made my intentions clear in my first email -- I am not at all antagonistic or in any way attacking the concept of packaging costs in general or LISASoft in particular. I am merely curious. I had never heard of packaging costs until this thread, so obviously, my scholarship of open source, particularly its economics and motivation, has been seriously lacking, and I need to correct it. And, what better way to do that than to ask the person who is asking for packaging costs in the first place. 1. How much are we talking about here? 2. Of course, any price is worth it if someone is willing to pay it, but how to determine if the amount being asked in #1 above is commensurate with the value of the product being considered, and is in line with the value of similar products? 3. If no one comes up with the packaging costs, would you not put it into open source, or would you still put it, but just dump the
