Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Article] Can the Terms of the GPL Prevent GNU/Linux being used for War?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Mateusz Loskot mate...@loskot.net wrote: Hi, I'm forwarding potentially interesting article from FSM: http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/can_terms_gpl_prevent_gnulinux_being_used_war with two of OSGeo projects mentioned. There is eGPL for that: http://www.egpl.info/ For nonMIL: http://www.egpl.info/feeds/1 -- Benjamin Henrion bhenrion at ffii.org FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-3500762 In July 2005, after several failed attempts to legalise software patents in Europe, the patent establishment changed its strategy. Instead of explicitly seeking to sanction the patentability of software, they are now seeking to create a central European patent court, which would establish and enforce patentability rules in their favor, without any possibility of correction by competing courts or democratically elected legislators. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Migrating to Postgres 9 for replication?
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Jo Walsh jo.wa...@ed.ac.uk wrote: I would love to hear success stories or horror stories about migrating from Postgres 8.3 or 8.4 to 9, in order to get replication working. At least that is what I have been told we need to do. One master database and two failover copies. It would save a lot of maintenance time, I am imagining! I wrote some scripts to do point in time recovery (PITR), live backup using rsync, and booting a slave with pgbackup. I will release them soon on github, will keep you posted. -- Benjamin Henrion bhenrion at ffii.org FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-3500762 In July 2005, after several failed attempts to legalise software patents in Europe, the patent establishment changed its strategy. Instead of explicitly seeking to sanction the patentability of software, they are now seeking to create a central European patent court, which would establish and enforce patentability rules in their favor, without any possibility of correction by competing courts or democratically elected legislators. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
Fee, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080515]: Benjamin Henrion wrote: Exclude proprietary file formats from public nuisance, yes. Public nuisance? Surely the public at large gets to choose what they view as a nuisance rather than you? Public nuisance is for example promotion of monopolies, which is exactly closed proprietary file formats does. And I have a right to find out what my governement is doing, how is it possible if the governement forces me to buy a copy Microsoft Word 2003 (TM), and thus also a copy of Microsoft Windows (TM), and thus also an intel x86-based computer? -- Benjamin Henrion [EMAIL PROTECTED] FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
Landon Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080515]: I thought it might be wise to point out that this discussion seems to be getting a little aggressive, and possibly a little personal. All sides have made valid points. It's obvious that Mr. Fee isn't going to agree with many of us on this particular issue, and his opinion is worth considering. I would remind Mr. Fee, very humbly (of course), that he is on the OSGeo mailing list, so in some respects he's chosen a fight in which he is very outnumbered. I don't know how productive it is to aggressively defend something like the .doc format on a mailing list for proponents of open source software. :] You'll probably have about as much success as you would touting the .odt format on a mailing list for the Microsoft Word fan club. :] Landon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fee, James Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:40 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration Chris Puttick wrote: I'm sorry. In what way does requiring digital information to be in an open standard force or exclude anyone? Be very sure those companies desperately resisting the development and/or support of digital standards would provide support for government mandated ones really, really fast. I thought we were talking about forcing governments to offer up information in a open standard format. Are you saying that if a city has standardized on MS Office, it would be ok for them to continue to post .doc? I got the feeling that folks are saying these cities need to abandon their software and move to other platforms someone arbitrarily says is open. Let's take the example of mandating OpenDocument Format. There you are, either moderately well-off or using an illegal copy of Microsoft Office and suddenly you would be unable to read/write documents provided by government bodies. What is the difference if OpenOffice supports a standard such as the old doc format? I see nothing in the MS argument that forces folks to use illegal copies of MS Office (heck use Google Docs). So sure, in the interim you might be forced to download one of several free (as in beer, some free as in libre) applications to access those documents. Terrible imposition, my apologies. This is somehow worse than being forced to either have second rate access because you have too old a copy of Microsoft Office, use an operating system for which Microsoft Office is not available or choose not to break the law by using illegal copies of software? I fail to see the problem here. Either you have a copy of MS Office, or you use OpenOffice already to view Word documents. This isn't about users of the information because there are several free (as in beer, some free as in libre) applications to access those proprietary documents. This is about forcing governments to either buy software that produces open documents (that are readable by less software than the proprietary formats), or forcing them to pay How do you measure the 'less' software here? The only application that reads 100% proprietary file formats is the application that goes with it. And by saying readable by less software than the proprietary formats, it is true that HTML has less application support then DOC. consultants to install, train and debug open solutions. What a complete waste of everyone's time. I preper that my tax-payer money goes into the pocket of a local service then in the bank account of a company who controls the DOC format. Sharing of data happens because the system at large demands that it happens, not because a couple of folks sign some non-binding document on the internet. You know you have more and more Folks on the internet. And sharing data happens because we have data networks we did not had before. The internet and email makes that you will receive soon *.docx files from your friends, with nice macro extensions you won't be able to decode because you did not buy software XYZ. -- Benjamin Henrion [EMAIL PROTECTED] FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
Fee, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080515]: Benjamin Henrion wrote: And I have a right to find out what my governement is doing, how is it possible if the governement forces me to buy a copy Microsoft Word 2003 (TM), and thus also a copy of Microsoft Windows (TM), and thus also an intel x86-based computer? We are so getting in the weeds here. As I've said before, one can open MS Word 2003 (TM) files anywhere even on Google Docs. If the government is publishing a DOC file with macros, can I open it in Google Docs? -- Benjamin Henrion [EMAIL PROTECTED] FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
Frank Warmerdam [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080515]: Landon Blake wrote: I thought it might be wise to point out that this discussion seems to be getting a little aggressive, and possibly a little personal. All sides have made valid points. It's obvious that Mr. Fee isn't going to agree with many of us on this particular issue, and his opinion is worth considering. I would remind Mr. Fee, very humbly (of course), that he is on the OSGeo mailing list, so in some respects he's chosen a fight in which he is very outnumbered. I don't know how productive it is to aggressively defend something like the .doc format on a mailing list for proponents of open source software. :] You'll probably have about as much success as you would touting the .odt format on a mailing list for the Microsoft Word fan club. :] Landon, James is making valid points about practical aspects of openness. I hesitate to sign the declaration because it seems to absolutist and not recognizing of practical aspects of openness (as opposed to de-jure definitions of open standards). I personally am dubious this discussion will accomplish anything useful because of the vague generalities of the original proposition, and the lack of a real purpose to the discussion. But I'm also not inclined to discourage James or others from expressing their position once the discussion has started. Another example often given a bit more in our realm than .doc files is shapefiles. They are technically a proprietary format belonging to one proprietary vendor. But the format is published, widely implemented in free and proprietary software and quite understandable. So I think it is reasonable for government data to be distributed in this format. Free of patents? ESRI has always been the Microsoft of GIS, so beware of patents on this particular format. On the other hand, in many cases, government agencies have ended up publishing data in formats like SAIF, SDTS and various highly custom GML schemas that are technically open, but for practical purposes they are very difficult to utilize. What I would like to discourage is governments distributing in file formats (like the mentioned new ESRI File Geodatabase) that are effectively closed - at least for the time being. Like MPG, I'm sympathetic to the goals of the declaration but am concerned it is not sufficiently practical. And I'm a very practical guy. Practical guys makes compromises with freedom. As a citizen, I don't accept the government rolling over my basic rights. -- Benjamin Henrion [EMAIL PROTECTED] FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
Fee, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080515]: Benjamin Henrion wrote: The only application that reads 100% proprietary file formats is the application that goes with it. Well shoot, that can be said about a lot of formats even those that are open. Does OO read/write ODF better than Google Docs does? Don't know. You should have tests and validators for checking compliance. AFAIK, I don't know any for ODF. It is a similar problem then Does IE renders CSS better then Firefox?. I don't know. I preper that my tax-payer money goes into the pocket of a local service then in the bank account of a company who controls the DOC format. So a local contractor that install/maintains a Microsoft system is fine? Yes, if the format is for example HTML and that Microsoft garantees 100% compliance with this standard. You know you have more and more Folks on the internet. All the time and many are wanting data shared in formats they can read on their computers. They don't want a DWG file that they can't read at all (let alone a shapefile and all those weird .shx and .dbf files). Users wants applications to read their data, but citizens have similar needs. The difference is that some compromises and others like me don't. And sharing data happens because we have data networks we did not had before. True, folks want to get the data they have coming to them, eh? That's the well known network effect. The internet and email makes that you will receive soon *.docx files from your friends, with nice macro extensions you won't be able to decode because you did not buy software XYZ. If the government is publishing a DOC file with macros, can I open it in Google Docs? Macros are of course problem. My company won't let me open any word documents that have macros in them. Your point though is a good one. It isn't always the format that data is shared in, but how it is shared in that format. Proprietary or not, data needs to be in a consumable format. Let consumers decides then. But consumers are citizens and their governments in this present case. That's why it is a bit different then the traditional market. -- Benjamin Henrion [EMAIL PROTECTED] FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
Michael P. Gerlek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080514]: I'm not looking to start a debate, but... We call on all governments to: 1. Procure only information technology that implements free and open standards; 2. Deliver e-government services based exclusively on free and open standards; 3. Use only free and open digital standards in their own activities. I'm certainly sympathetic to the desires this declaration seems to express, but this seems to go too far by using words like only and exclusively. There are undoubtedly cases where extant open standards are not as mature, stable, featureful, mission-safe, etc, as the relevant proprietary solutions, and so as a pragmatic matter governments must rely on the proprietary works in those cases. And force its citizens to buy a copy of proprietary software, or to use special software. When it comes to contact with citizens, governments could exclude participation of their own citizens just by using proprietary standards. -- Benjamin Henrion [EMAIL PROTECTED] FFII Brussels - +32-484-566109 - +32-2-4148403 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
