Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
- James Fee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benjamin Henrion Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:56 PM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration 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. Sounds like you want to force and exclude as well. 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. 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. 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? IT only does not have a complete set of open digital standards because it is so immature. Every area of life is made accessible and cost-effective because of standards. The only people who do not benefit in the short-term by forcing standards on an area are the dominant manufacturers supplying said area. Where do you buy your fuel for your car/motorbike? Which manufacturer supplies your tyres? Where are you forced to get it serviced? Does your fridge manufacturer also supplies the electric sockets in your house? And the electricity? We have open standards for networking, which has been useful; open standards for the web, which some suggest is why the web exists at all; open (some belatedly!) standards for digital images (a mere convenience). WFS/WMS not been useful for you? Why object to open standards for other file formats? Chris -- Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open Document Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit http://iso26300.info for more information. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
IMO: Good points Michael. I'm not looking to start a debate, but... ditto. (perhaps I should stay out of this...) We call on all governments to: 1. Procure only information technology that implements free and open standards; This is desirable, however consider: There is often existing proprietary technology in use that meets the requirements of a business. There may have been a significant investment over a large period of time to implement and use this technology. The business unit may not have achieved its return on investment. There may also have been a significant investment in training end users in this product range. Another consideration is the availability of trained users and consultants within industry. Another is the overhead in data conversion of significant repositories, and the potential for lost context during the conversion process (e.g. topology). Considering the above, it may not be realistic to expect this to occur quickly. This is something that needs to be phased in strategically over time, if it makes sense to do so. From my viewpoint it is more important to make sure that data maintained within these 'proprietary systems' is able to be freely shared using open standards. This can be implemented parallel to the proprietary systems. In time systems can be converted when investment decisions allow and business functionality is met. 2. Deliver e-government services based exclusively on free and open standards; This another of those 'holy war' issues that never seem to go away and flair up from time to time. Not all countries, or even government organisations within countries have the same liberal approaches to free and open access to data that the US and Canada do. Many organisations still have their budgets tied to sales of 'licenses' to their data. There are also security issues for some countries. We can have open access to data as a goal, but don't expect overnight success. Also there is a significant demand for governments to provide data in someone's favourite format, so that they don't have to do the conversion into 'their' spatial tool. 3. Use only free and open digital standards in their own activities. Again desirable. My comments to point 1 above are also relevent here. Bruce Bannerman Notice: This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright.No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information contained in this email. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
On 5/15/08, Lester Caine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P Kishor wrote: On 5/14/08, Michael P. Gerlek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not looking to start a debate, but... you just did, and a good one at that. 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. indeed. As much as an open source advocate, proponent and practitioner I have, I see little positive effect that this declaration would have. In all likelihood, it would further brand us as zealots. I tend to agree there. PROMOTE cooperation. I thought us or them went out the window a few years ago when we realized that working together is better. free and open digital standards is all well and good but a meaningless concept. Standard for what? But disagree there. Switching from M$ documents to 'real' open source documents and dropping licensed graphical data in favour of OSM and other free map data opens the door to 'Standardising' on something that we can all cooperate on. It still is not clear what the something is... are you advocating a standard for a license or a standard for a format? Are you talking about standards in office-productivity applications (word-processing, spreadsheet, presentation software) or in databases (should we boycott everyone who uses Oracle and Ingres?) or remote sensing (does IDL go out the window?) or medical imaging or audio or video or ... you get the picture. Let me repeat my question. Standard for what? It 'somewhat annoys me' when I receive an M$ document from a council and am expected to edit and return it. They get back a PDF because I know that the format will be as I laid it out. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
P Kishor wrote: free and open digital standards is all well and good but a meaningless concept. Standard for what? But disagree there. Switching from M$ documents to 'real' open source documents and dropping licensed graphical data in favour of OSM and other free map data opens the door to 'Standardising' on something that we can all cooperate on. It still is not clear what the something is... are you advocating a standard for a license or a standard for a format? Are you talking about standards in office-productivity applications (word-processing, spreadsheet, presentation software) or in databases (should we boycott everyone who uses Oracle and Ingres?) or remote sensing (does IDL go out the window?) or medical imaging or audio or video or ... you get the picture. Let me repeat my question. Standard for what? Simply a standard for what we are looking to cooperate on. OSM has a rather woolly standard for mapping data, it does not cost a penny to obtain it, and it has a considerable amount of free data behind it. It is evolving and expanding as needs dictate. SQL is another area where the 'standard' costs an arm and a leg, but there are very good implementations to access it that are freely available. If my customer insists on Oracle then so be it, they pay all the additional costs, but my open source equivalent - Firebird - would do the same job for my applications - without the additional costs. There is no need for the billions spent on ISO. We just need to agree on what we are doing and publish that information somewhere and cooperate in maintaining it? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
On 5/15/08, Chris Puttick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - P Kishor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But disagree there. Switching from M$ documents to 'real' open source documents and dropping licensed graphical data in favour of OSM and other free map data opens the door to 'Standardising' on something that we can all cooperate on. It still is not clear what the something is... are you advocating a standard for a license or a standard for a format? Are you talking about standards in office-productivity applications (word-processing, spreadsheet, presentation software) or in databases (should we boycott everyone who uses Oracle and Ingres?) or remote sensing (does IDL go out the window?) or medical imaging or audio or video or ... you get the picture. Let me repeat my question. Standard for what? Standards for everything that matters. Chris, You are conflating a whole boatload of things here, and everything that matters is about the biggest boatload there can be. A physical example: in the UK we have a standard for electrical plugs and sockets and for the supply. This means that I can buy a lamp or a fridge I can be sure it will be able to plug in to my electrical socket and just work and I don't risk death by using it. And, when I travel from the US to the UK, I am sol unless I carry a driver or a translator that allows me to connect my appliance to the UK grid. What was the standard here? I didn't force UK to change to 110 v and to flat pins. I just went to the market and bought a translator. It is my choice to have switched sockets or unswitched. The plug can be black or white or chrome (hopefully not chrome...); it can be rubberised and curvy or hard plastic and square. The sockets can be sunk into the wall or surface mounted or in trunking and also any colour/material (mine are black nickel, which is nice without being too much, but I digress...). It doesn't matter i.e. these factors are not part of standard, because what matters is that the socket has 3 specifically sized rectangular pins, positioned just so, with the right pin live and fused appropriately, the left pin neutral and the top pin earth. The socket needs to have the equivalent sized and placed holes and wired appropriately and if switched the switch needs to meet certain specifications. The UK electrical supply is legally required to be 50Hz AC at 230V +/- 10% That's it. That's the bits that need to be standardised. And not only are supply and sockets and plugs standardised but mandated to be so. This means I can buy my sockets from whomever made by whomever and my plugs are sourced by the manufacturers of my electrical equipment from whomever. Bring it all together with my power supply from yet another supplier and it all works fine. SQL already is a standard (the openness of it let's debate another day). A well-behaved (R/O)DBMS responds more or less the same way to an SQL query as the others. This has been a useful evolution of databases, reflecting their relative age. But we do not have standards in many areas of digital life where it would be important, or where the standards exist, they are not being mandated and therefore are not being adopted. SQL is not a data storage format. SQL is a query standard, and a fairly malleable one. Are you talking about data storage formats or about query standards? So the shortish answer to your question: standards for the digital plugs and sockets and standards for the digital power supply. The plugs and sockets are the APIs and the protocols; lots of that is already sorted. The digital power supply is the information that flows, the stuff that is important in this information age we are entering. It is there we are short of standards. I don't want to dictate to anyone what software they should use. I do think I should be able to demand that they provide information in a standardised format and this not be an issue because they don't have a specific software package. Where there are no available standards we have to be pragmatic initially, but we must move, with some urgency, towards a position where there are standards for those interchanges i.e. develop them either from existing formats or by starting clean. My shortish reply is that there is no shortish reply. I am with you with regards to the sentiment. But I am convinced that the digistan/Hague declaration is not the way to go about doing so. We've had a lot of discussion about standards on OSGeo lists as well as on Geowanking lists. Some of that discussion merits re-reading. Some are born standards (Shapefiles, by virtue of first-entry as well as subsequent ubiquity), some achieve standards (OGC-type standards by discussion and committee), and others have standards thrust upon them (big agencies using MS-Word or ArcGIS). In the end, the most useful and easy to implement format
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
- P Kishor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But disagree there. Switching from M$ documents to 'real' open source documents and dropping licensed graphical data in favour of OSM and other free map data opens the door to 'Standardising' on something that we can all cooperate on. It still is not clear what the something is... are you advocating a standard for a license or a standard for a format? Are you talking about standards in office-productivity applications (word-processing, spreadsheet, presentation software) or in databases (should we boycott everyone who uses Oracle and Ingres?) or remote sensing (does IDL go out the window?) or medical imaging or audio or video or ... you get the picture. Let me repeat my question. Standard for what? Standards for everything that matters. A physical example: in the UK we have a standard for electrical plugs and sockets and for the supply. This means that I can buy a lamp or a fridge I can be sure it will be able to plug in to my electrical socket and just work and I don't risk death by using it. It is my choice to have switched sockets or unswitched. The plug can be black or white or chrome (hopefully not chrome...); it can be rubberised and curvy or hard plastic and square. The sockets can be sunk into the wall or surface mounted or in trunking and also any colour/material (mine are black nickel, which is nice without being too much, but I digress...). It doesn't matter i.e. these factors are not part of standard, because what matters is that the socket has 3 specifically sized rectangular pins, positioned just so, with the right pin live and fused appropriately, the left pin neutral and the top pin earth. The socket needs to have the equivalent sized and placed holes and wired appropriately and if switched the switch needs to meet certain specifications. The UK electrical supply is legally required to be 50Hz AC at 230V +/- 10% That's it. That's the bits that need to be standardised. And not only are supply and sockets and plugs standardised but mandated to be so. This means I can buy my sockets from whomever made by whomever and my plugs are sourced by the manufacturers of my electrical equipment from whomever. Bring it all together with my power supply from yet another supplier and it all works fine. SQL already is a standard (the openness of it let's debate another day). A well-behaved (R/O)DBMS responds more or less the same way to an SQL query as the others. This has been a useful evolution of databases, reflecting their relative age. But we do not have standards in many areas of digital life where it would be important, or where the standards exist, they are not being mandated and therefore are not being adopted. So the shortish answer to your question: standards for the digital plugs and sockets and standards for the digital power supply. The plugs and sockets are the APIs and the protocols; lots of that is already sorted. The digital power supply is the information that flows, the stuff that is important in this information age we are entering. It is there we are short of standards. I don't want to dictate to anyone what software they should use. I do think I should be able to demand that they provide information in a standardised format and this not be an issue because they don't have a specific software package. Where there are no available standards we have to be pragmatic initially, but we must move, with some urgency, towards a position where there are standards for those interchanges i.e. develop them either from existing formats or by starting clean. It's not about control or restrictions, its about real choice. You get to choose which applications you use for which jobs and do so without concerns about operating systems or the applications being used by your client or other stakeholders, because the information will flow as a standard all can read without issue. As to why governments first? Another long answer for another time... Chris -- Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open Document Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit http://iso26300.info for more information. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 05:53:16AM +0100, Lester Caine wrote: You must not mean a M$ Office Open XML document since it is of course and open standard. *shrug* Well since M$ do not have any software that actually produces OOXML documents yet At least not to the format submitted to ISO ;) The main problem THERE of cause is that ISO standards are not free and open anyway. HOW much does a copy cost :) Well, free-as-in-speech does not have to imply free-as-in-beer. Also, some ISO standards *are* available gratis/free (such as WMS, which also is both libre/free and gratis/free available from OGC); I can usually find gratis/free versions of ISO open standards by searching the web for the DIS (draft) version, and my rights to implement and discuss them remains gratis/free. Whether the ISO approach is appropriate or successful - either at helping businesses or promoting best practise - is definitely another, awkward question :) Another problem here is talking as if we agree on what a free and open standard is. Even http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition does not clearly, to my reading, differentiate between libre/free and gratis/free. http://blog.okfn.org/2008/05/14/dispatches-from-digistan/ elaborates on this and on their idea of openness metrics, and on a draft open format definition which some OSGeo members have contributed to - though clearly Digistan's plans go a lot further than formats. As for force and exclude, the Digistan definition does not go much further than the European Commission have already gone, cf http://www.openstandards.eu/definition The question then becomes more one about decision-making and planning processes for non-profit organisations, and how to build models that will prevent inter-organisation stewards from tending to serve their own interests rather than those of wider business and technical communities. Cool, OSGeo has collectively to think about this as well! jo -- ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
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? -- James Fee, GISP Associate TEC Inc. voice: 480.736.3976 data: 480.736.3677 internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
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 consultants to install, train and debug open solutions. What a complete waste of everyone's time. 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. -- James Fee, GISP Associate TEC Inc. voice: 480.736.3976 data: 480.736.3677 internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ 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 wrote 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. :] Let me assure you I'm am cursing Microsoft Office as we speak. My point isn't that .doc is a good format, but it is readily available to read in many software packages (some very free and open). Things like ESRI's File Geodatabase are probably formats that I would tend to agree are an impediment to sharing data, but I don't see how any of the MS formats are limiting people using them or creating them. -- James Fee, GISP Associate TEC Inc. voice: 480.736.3976 data: 480.736.3677 internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
James wrote: My point isn't that .doc is a good format, but it is readily available to read in many software packages (some very free and open). In this sense .doc is a lot like .dwg files. It's use is pervasive, but there is no published spec. That is one thing that really makes ESRI Shapefiles stand out from the crowd. As soon as ESRI published the spec for Shapefiles it was easy for them to become universal. I won't comment on the .doc topic, but I will say that I believe Autodesk has vehemently guarded the .dwg format to maintain a monopoly. I suppose you could argue the same thing of Microsoft. I will point out one important difference between .dwg and .doc, however. Autodesk does publish the spec for the DXF format. There isn't a whole terrible lot that you can transfer with a DXF that you can with a DWG. I don't think rtf or .txt come even close to .doc. Landon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fee, James Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 9:57 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration Landon Blake wrote 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. :] Let me assure you I'm am cursing Microsoft Office as we speak. My point isn't that .doc is a good format, but it is readily available to read in many software packages (some very free and open). Things like ESRI's File Geodatabase are probably formats that I would tend to agree are an impediment to sharing data, but I don't see how any of the MS formats are limiting people using them or creating them. -- James Fee, GISP Associate TEC Inc. voice: 480.736.3976 data: 480.736.3677 internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ 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
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. 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. 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] 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
Frank wrote: And I'm a very practical guy. Me too. I wasn't trying to discourage James, just point out that he was arguing about .doc on the OSGeo mailing list. I thought that was kinda funny. :] Frank wrote: 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. Amen. Can I get a shout out for the death of impractical standards? (I think we should implement a sacred law every standard author should be forced to create an implementation of his own standard beast. That might go a long way towards solving the impractical standard problem.) Landon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Warmerdam Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:13 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration 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. 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. 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 Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ 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
Frank wrote: I also do not accept that getting government data in open standard formats is a basic right... I had to respond to this statement. :] I'd be pretty upset of my federal, state, or local government released written information in French. It would be pretty useless to me. I think the same could be said for digital information in some type of proprietary binary format. If you don't have the software needed to read it, it might as well be in French. As a consequence, I don think governments have a responsibility to distribute digital information in a form that is palatable. Preferably this data would be in a human-readable format, and would also be capable of being parsed, but palatable at a minimum. Give me a PDF if nothing else, but I'd rather have it as a CSV file. :] I would also point out that the political climate in the United States when it comes to open source and open standards is quite different in the United States than it is in Europe. Companies like Microsoft are very much involved in applying money and political pressure to make sure formats like .doc remain mainstream and in use by the government. I don't think this is the case in Europe, but I could be mistaken. Landon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Warmerdam Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:59 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration Benjamin Henrion wrote: 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. Benjamin, It is hard to always ensure there cannot be a patent that could apply, but for a simple format like shapefile it would be hard to apply a patent. Note that a company can hold patents on open standards too. The fact that one company promulgates a format does not give them that much leverage in patenting it. Patents are a danger onto their own, and not directly tied (IMHO) to the open standard vs. nominally proprietary format discussion. 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. I do not accept your claim that my being practical is equivelent to making compromises with freedom. I also do not accept that getting government data in open standard formats is a basic right, and attempting to make this equivelence to some degree cheapens the really basic rights (like rights to due process under the law, etc). I would add, taking such a position is very alienating to the bulk of humanity that you need to get behind an idea like this before it will actually take root. I think there is a great danger to the open source, open data, and open standards efforts in the attempts to legislate them. Done carelessly, legislation will inevitably lead to situations that are rediculous and this will discredit the whole effort. We see similar things with free healthcare, unions, minority rights (all of which I support) which if promoted without reference to common sense will result in a serious backlash. Certainly the government mandated use of some large unwieldy standard file formats in the geospatial realm has left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouth with regard to standards. I can see I'm getting rather broad here. I'd better stop now. 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 Warning: Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
2008/5/15 Frank Warmerdam [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I think there is a great danger to the open source, open data, and open standards efforts in the attempts to legislate them. Done carelessly, legislation will inevitably lead to situations that are rediculous and this will discredit the whole effort. I have seen this done here in the sunny land of Brazil. Some free software activists have promoted free software to such heights that the whole idea was hijacked by one political party and shoved down the throat of many public orgs. So, in that regard, there were many migration efforts, done with little to no planning, that obviuosly went awry. In hindsight, that is what happens when one takes free/open to the level of pure ideology and tries to put it to work without consideration to the practical and technical aspects. -- Paulo Marcondes = PU1/PU2PIX -22.915 -42.224 = GG86jc ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
Tim wrote: Getting back to the original issue, I think the real problem (as previously noted) is the insistence in absolute terms with using only open standards. It sounds great until you look at the consequences. No de jure standard for the problem space you're working in? Tough. Significant numbers of users *want* data in a proprietary de facto format? To bad. Standard makes requirements you don't want or need to address? Suck it up. Excellent points. If I had to point out the defects with the resolution that touched off this discussion that's what I would have said. Landon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Bowden Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:40 AM To: OSGeo Discussions Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 09:53 -0700, 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. :] I'm not at all sure Mr Fee is trying to be productive. He is shooting fish in a barrel. It's so bloody easy getting the freetards [1] frothing at the mouth over these issues. If he has any sense, he'll be having a quiet chuckle to himself. The ease with which one can get a rise out of freetards points to the absurdity of taking an extremely hard line approach wrt standards. Getting back to the original issue, I think the real problem (as previously noted) is the insistence in absolute terms with using only open standards. It sounds great until you look at the consequences. No de jure standard for the problem space you're working in? Tough. Significant numbers of users *want* data in a proprietary de facto format? To bad. Standard makes requirements you don't want or need to address? Suck it up. Yes, we want to be able to read write data and have confidence in the integrity of the data. We want to avoid hurdles to interoperability, and open standards help, but they're not a panacea. They do come with their own set of problems, and no matter how you approach the issue, they won't be ubiquitous. You can't *force* vendors to offer solutions that implement open standards. You can refuse to purchase their solutions, but what do you do when the cost of re-implementing for the sake of having an open standard exceeds the cost of the problem being solved? Ignore the closed solution and not solve the problem, or suck it up and use the proprietary solution anyway? Anyway, it's late here, and not even watching the IPL is going to keep me awake any longer (Indian Premier League- cricket for those from the wrong parts of the world). Tim Bowden [1] I count myself as one of the freetards. 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
Re: [work] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
I find some parts of this discussion interesting, but would it be possible to focus our discussion on geographic standards? My email inbox is overflowing. Thanks, Tara Benjamin Henrion wrote: 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1434 - Release Date: 5/15/2008 7:24 AM -- My e-mail delivery has been unreliable lately, so I am asking for return receipts from all my email messages. OK'ing the return receipt lets me know that my message was delivered. Thank you. Tara Athan Principal, Alternatives to Invasive Species tara_athan [AT] alt2is.com 707-485-1198 PO Box 415 Redwood Valley, CA 95470 ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
On 5/15/08, Benjamin Henrion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Consumers do decide. Many, many (and I am not talking about governments) have bought MS and ESRI and Oracle and Autocad and Wordperfect and Apple and Adobe. I am currently working for a very, very large, non-governmental development agency, and if I told them to use OpenOffice, they would tell me go take a hike. They use MS and ESRI products, and no govt. told them to do so. 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
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. -mpg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Puttick Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:28 AM To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration Hi all A new group is being formed to promote open digital standards, starting with a declaration regarding the importance of digital standards being truly open: http://www.digistan.org/hague-declaration:en Please read it and sign if you agree. I'm sure most working with spatial data would have encountered problems with the core areas where standards are missing or not being supported properly. Think GIS projects. Or CAD. I'm sure there are others... Cheers Chris -- Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open Document Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit http://iso26300.info for more information. ___ 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] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
On 5/14/08, Michael P. Gerlek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not looking to start a debate, but... you just did, and a good one at that. 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. indeed. As much as an open source advocate, proponent and practitioner I have, I see little positive effect that this declaration would have. In all likelihood, it would further brand us as zealots. I thought us or them went out the window a few years ago when we realized that working together is better. free and open digital standards is all well and good but a meaningless concept. Standard for what? 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. -mpg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Puttick Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:28 AM To: discuss@lists.osgeo.org Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration Hi all A new group is being formed to promote open digital standards, starting with a declaration regarding the importance of digital standards being truly open: http://www.digistan.org/hague-declaration:en Please read it and sign if you agree. I'm sure most working with spatial data would have encountered problems with the core areas where standards are missing or not being supported properly. Think GIS projects. Or CAD. I'm sure there are others... Cheers Chris -- Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open Document Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit http://iso26300.info for more information. ___ 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 -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/ ___ 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
RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
Lester Caine wrote: It 'somewhat annoys me' when I receive an M$ document from a council and am expected to edit and return it. They get back a PDF because I know that the format will be as I laid it out. You must not mean a M$ Office Open XML document since it is of course and open standard. *shrug* -- James Fee ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Sign the Hague declaration
Fee, James wrote: Lester Caine wrote: It 'somewhat annoys me' when I receive an M$ document from a council and am expected to edit and return it. They get back a PDF because I know that the format will be as I laid it out. You must not mean a M$ Office Open XML document since it is of course and open standard. *shrug* Well since M$ do not have any software that actually produces OOXML documents yet At least not to the format submitted to ISO ;) The main problem THERE of cause is that ISO standards are not free and open anyway. HOW much does a copy cost :) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
