[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Origins Of OpenJUMP
Landon, Thanks for taking the time to provide the detailed background on on the Jump family tree. Seems to me like the Java 'tribe' is a bit more fractured than the C 'tribe'. Rich On Jan 4, 2008 8:43 AM, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rich, > > I'll respond to your questions in a separate thread. :] (I invite any > other OSGeo members that work with OpenJUMP or UDig to correct mistakes > or add details to my post.) > > JUMP was originally developed by Vivid Solutions with some assistance > (I'm not sure how much) by Refractions Research. I believe the funding > for the development for JUMP came from some source in the Canadian > government. (This source was one of the Canadian Provinces, if I > remember correctly.) > > At some point funding was awarded for "JUMP 2". This time the funds went > to Refractions Research. Their development team had identified some of > the design flaws in the original JUMP, and decided to fix these. In the > end they decided to go with a completely new design, and UDig was the > result. > > In the meantime Steve Tanner and some other JUMP users decided to fork > the code base for JUMP. This was not done hastily. It's been a while > since all this happened, and I'm not clear on every detail, but I > believe one main reason we forked was a desire to internationalize > JUMP's source code. The bottom line is that Vivid Solutions was (in my > modest opinion) unresponsive to outside developers desire to make > reasonable improvements or even contribute patches. At the same time > they were doing very little with the code base themselves. This is what > led to the fork. At one point we had a handful of different individual > developers and organization maintaining their own versions of JUMP, and > we realized we could all get together and benefit from a common core. > > This is still how OpenJUMP operates. We've got guys that maintain their > own code bases with individual tools and modifications, but they all > make a good effort to port the best (and least controversial) stuff back > to the core. There really is no formal governance mechanism in place. We > all get along well and try to help each other out. > > There are some issues with our model of development. We don't have a > great release cycle, although that has been discussed in the last few > months, and developer turnover can be fairly high. I'm also easily > distracted, and I have to exercise self discipline to finish as task > once I start it. I must regretfully admit this has not helped the > project. (I'm consciously working on that personality flaw.) > > A couple of interesting things to note: > > - Our relationship with Vivid Solutions seems to have improved over the > course of the last year. The two developers at the company that are "in > charge" of JUMP occasionally help out with a problem on the OpenJUMP > mailing list, and users of JUMP and OpenJUMP share a common mailing > list. We've even talked about the possibility of merging JUMP and > OpenJUMP back to a common core, but I think this is unlikely without > some major funding at Vivid Solutions. > > - Had Steve and I known about Refractions Research involvement with > "JUMP 2" OpenJUMP and UDig would probably be the same program. I look at > this with deep regret, although I don't think it is anyone's fault in > particular. Still, I think about what the JUMP user community could have > accomplished with Refractions Research and I get little tears in my > eyes. :] > > Still, I get a kick out of Jody Garnett, and I hope OpenJUMP and > GeoTools/UDig can work together more in the future. We definitely have > some different approaches to certain aspects of software design, but I > think at a minimum we can share data I/O or data access code and map > projection code. > > Landon > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Richard Greenwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:32 PM > To: Landon Blake > Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: FOSS4GIS business models > > On Jan 3, 2008 4:37 PM, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think OpenJUMP might be an example of the opposite case. In this > situation the less-than-ideal management of a FOSS GIS program by a > private company led to a fork. The fork was made, not by another > company, but by a group of individual users/developers. > > I'm interested in more details of the history and relationship between > Jump, OpenJump, and uDig. I think OpenJump and uDig have roots in > Jump, which was started by Martin Davis, or am I incorrect? And the > fork came about when? And why? > > Maybe you would prefer to reply directly to the OSGeo-Discuss thread > "FOSS4GIS business models", but I'm afraid my questions are tangential > to that thread. > > Rich > > -- > Richard Greenwood > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.greenwoodmap.com > > > Warning: > Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects > including translation and transmission errors. If the read
[OSGeo-Discuss] New Year's Reading - Journal Volume 3
This original notice, below, was sent Dec. 20th. I'm resending it in case it got buried in your year-end or New Year's email pile and you missed it. :) Enjoy! The OSGeo Journal team is pleased to announce the availability of Volume 3. This volume of the Journal is dedicated to publishing the proceedings from the FOSS4G 2007 conference held in September. 14 different papers, representing over 35 authors were contributed. They cover a wide range of Integration, Development, Topical Interest and Case Study material. You can access the Journal as a print-ready PDF or as individual PDF articles from: http://www.osgeo.org/journal/volume3 Our next volume will be delayed until the first quarter of 2008. If you are interested in submitting articles, please add your name to: http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/Journal_Volume_4 Enjoy the articles and best wishes for the New Year! Sincerely, Tyler Tyler Mitchell Editor in Chief ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Origins Of OpenJUMP
Rich, I'll respond to your questions in a separate thread. :] (I invite any other OSGeo members that work with OpenJUMP or UDig to correct mistakes or add details to my post.) JUMP was originally developed by Vivid Solutions with some assistance (I'm not sure how much) by Refractions Research. I believe the funding for the development for JUMP came from some source in the Canadian government. (This source was one of the Canadian Provinces, if I remember correctly.) At some point funding was awarded for "JUMP 2". This time the funds went to Refractions Research. Their development team had identified some of the design flaws in the original JUMP, and decided to fix these. In the end they decided to go with a completely new design, and UDig was the result. In the meantime Steve Tanner and some other JUMP users decided to fork the code base for JUMP. This was not done hastily. It's been a while since all this happened, and I'm not clear on every detail, but I believe one main reason we forked was a desire to internationalize JUMP's source code. The bottom line is that Vivid Solutions was (in my modest opinion) unresponsive to outside developers desire to make reasonable improvements or even contribute patches. At the same time they were doing very little with the code base themselves. This is what led to the fork. At one point we had a handful of different individual developers and organization maintaining their own versions of JUMP, and we realized we could all get together and benefit from a common core. This is still how OpenJUMP operates. We've got guys that maintain their own code bases with individual tools and modifications, but they all make a good effort to port the best (and least controversial) stuff back to the core. There really is no formal governance mechanism in place. We all get along well and try to help each other out. There are some issues with our model of development. We don't have a great release cycle, although that has been discussed in the last few months, and developer turnover can be fairly high. I'm also easily distracted, and I have to exercise self discipline to finish as task once I start it. I must regretfully admit this has not helped the project. (I'm consciously working on that personality flaw.) A couple of interesting things to note: - Our relationship with Vivid Solutions seems to have improved over the course of the last year. The two developers at the company that are "in charge" of JUMP occasionally help out with a problem on the OpenJUMP mailing list, and users of JUMP and OpenJUMP share a common mailing list. We've even talked about the possibility of merging JUMP and OpenJUMP back to a common core, but I think this is unlikely without some major funding at Vivid Solutions. - Had Steve and I known about Refractions Research involvement with "JUMP 2" OpenJUMP and UDig would probably be the same program. I look at this with deep regret, although I don't think it is anyone's fault in particular. Still, I think about what the JUMP user community could have accomplished with Refractions Research and I get little tears in my eyes. :] Still, I get a kick out of Jody Garnett, and I hope OpenJUMP and GeoTools/UDig can work together more in the future. We definitely have some different approaches to certain aspects of software design, but I think at a minimum we can share data I/O or data access code and map projection code. Landon -Original Message- From: Richard Greenwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:32 PM To: Landon Blake Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: FOSS4GIS business models On Jan 3, 2008 4:37 PM, Landon Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think OpenJUMP might be an example of the opposite case. In this situation the less-than-ideal management of a FOSS GIS program by a private company led to a fork. The fork was made, not by another company, but by a group of individual users/developers. I'm interested in more details of the history and relationship between Jump, OpenJump, and uDig. I think OpenJump and uDig have roots in Jump, which was started by Martin Davis, or am I incorrect? And the fork came about when? And why? Maybe you would prefer to reply directly to the OSGeo-Discuss thread "FOSS4GIS business models", but I'm afraid my questions are tangential to that thread. Rich -- Richard Greenwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.greenwoodmap.com 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: FOSS4GIS business models
Hi Gilberto (and list), only a couple of notes Gilberto Camara wrote: > Dear OSGEO Discussion List members: > > Paul Ramsey´s remarks are right on target. > > First, GIS is a large arena and there are > different motivations for developers, that > prevent them from joining a single project such as uDIG. > > Second, it is very difficult for a private > company to develop a world-class FOSS4G product > and survive based only on consulting > fees for the commercial sector. > > Third, to overcome these limitations there is > a need for governmental intervention, which may > be direct, as in the case of Catalonian government´s Sorry, but is Valencian government (region south to Catalonia) > support for gvSIG, or indirect, as in the decision > of Germany to support open source software. Also Extremadura in Spain has this support. 100% of school software it's linux based, and now every classroom has 1 for every two boys with the money they dont waste on licenses. > > In Brazil, the National Institute for Space Research (INPE) > has been supporting local GIS development for 25 years, > with a lot of success in our national user community. > Without official support, there would be no local FOOS4G > development in Brazil. > > In 2003, I did a F00S4G market survey and published the > results as a chapter of a US National Academy of Sciences book: > "Open Source GIS Software: Myths and Realities" > . > > We analysed 70 FOSS4G software projects taken from the > FreeGIS list, and divided them into three categories: > networked products (e.g. GRASS), corporate products (e.g., PostGIS) > and individual products (e.g., CAVOR). From each product, > we assessed its maturity, level of support and functionality. > > Our main conclusions at the time were: > (a) Only 6% of the products were developed by networked teams. > Thus, the “Linux paradigm” is the exception rather than the rule. > (b) Corporations (private or public) are the main developers of > successful open source products. Corporations account for 41% of > all products. > (e) Individual-led software (a small team of 1-3 people) have > less quality and more mortality than the above. > > These results show that the impetus behind successful > open source software was not coming from altruistic individuals > working in the midnight hour, but from professional programmers. > I consider that a similar result would be obtained today, should > the assessment be repeated. > > This analysis was further elaborated in a JASIST paper: > "Information Policies and Open Source Software in Developing Countries" > . > > For the FOSS4G effort to be fruitful and sustainable, > we need a very informed and candid assessment of our > business model. My personal view, based on 25 years of experience, > is that government intervention is essential for the open source > model to survive beyond a handful of examples. > > Best regards > Gilberto ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
