[Geodata] Re: [Aust-NZ] NZ geodata on OSGEO?

[jo at frot.org]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:48:30PM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Of course, this isn't an issue unique to OSM. Everyone aggregating  
> attribution-only datasets will have to form their own position, so it  
> helps to have clarity from the providers. Simply rehosting the data is  
> useful and a valuable technical testbed, but the more that people are  
> also encouraged to _use_ it, the better.
> 
> As far as most state geodata organisations are concerned, both OSGEO  
> and OSM are probably a bunch of weird hippies who all use that strange  
> Linux thing that isn't as good as Windows; and frankly they don't see  
> a big RoI in differentiating between one bunch of hippies and another.  

I suspect your perspective is a bit warped by the business/government 
climate in the UK - at least in Spain, Germany, Canada and the US,
OSGeo and related free software is in production use by public geodata
agencies, in some areas actively funded by them! Though still
populated by hippies, the open source bandwagon has rolled a bit
further than the open data one, "acceptability" is not unobtainable.
(Is Gary Lang of Autodesk a hippie? Maybe so, deep under the skin.)

> A co-ordinated approach is more likely to yield a result beneficial to  
> both purposes, rather than to the organisation that gets there first.  
> (Of course, Robin may already have spoken to them. I don't know the  
> specifics.)

Right, one reason for having a foundation at all is to provide a shared
facade of gravitas. In OSGeo's case this is decorated with sturdy
business cards, a fulltime staffer, etc. If the formal "facade" bit of 
the OSGeo Foundation would be at all useful in getting clear statements 
out of public agencies, of course i would be +1 on any practical support
that can be offered.

I wouldn't want to risk scaring LINZ by coming on too hard with the
legalese upfront - after all, this should be formalising a goodwill 
agreement rather than creating a situation in which need for law is felt. 
It ought to be enough to set out (re-)use cases and needs to them clearly.

(Rights for either one to redistribute freely would invoke rights
for the other - for any third party - to at least re-use data with 
minimal conditions - in any case - so no real problem?)


jo
--