- 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
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
Free and Open Source Geospatial 2008, Cape Town, South Africa. September
29 - Oct 3 2008, incorporating GISSA 2008.
SUBMISSION DEADLINE EXTENSION! 23 May
Due to demand, the Where 2.0 conference starting on our previous
deadline and a website glitch with the original cut-off date, we are
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
