[Geodata] Rebooting this committee

[Matthias Müller]

Phew, I definitely do not want to go into a battle here, but if the 
choice is "open" rather than "free" we probably need a good definition 
for the former:

 > "Open" => opposite of closed, may or may not be public"
... probably doesn't suffice.

Btw.: I didn't propose to use GNU for Geodata. It is a compact and 
straight forward definition of what is considered "free" and covers 
quite a few aspects that I associate with the terms "open" and "public".

Cheers,
Matthias

Am 30.07.2012 15:13, schrieb Mr. Puneet Kishor:
>
> On Jul 30, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Matthias Müller <Matthias_Mueller at tu-dresden.de> wrote:
>
>> Interesting discussion!
>>
>> What about choosing the word "Free" for "public and open"? There's already a good concept for free software which can be adapted for free geodata:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
>
>
> Good gosh no. The GNU idea of free, which applies to software and not very well to data, is not considered open by many.
>
> Am afraid we might get stuck on the choice of name here, but it is worth giving it some thought. Personally, I would like to see both "public" and "open" included in the conversation, with the clear understanding that they are two separate though perhaps overlapping, in part, concepts.
>
>
>> Important notice: "'free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer'."
>>
>> A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
>>
>> 1. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>> 2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>> 3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
>> 4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> So geodata is completely "free" if the following conditions apply:
>>
>> 1. The freedom to use the data, for any purpose (freedom 0). (Here a precondition would be public access -  the ability to fing and get the data)
>> 2. The freedom to study the data, and change it so it does fit your purpose as you wish (freedom 1). (E.g. transform it, or correct errors)
>> 3.  The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
>> 4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions (see 2nd point) to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.
>>
>>> 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is the
>>> shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we will make
>>> sure that we do not lose "public" and "open".
>> Well, what about "free geodata"?
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Matthias
>>
>> Am 30.07.2012 14:01, schrieb Arnulf Christl:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 07/30/2012 12:43 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:
>>>> (resending, after subscribing to the list)
>>>
>>> Thanks Puneet.
>>>
>>>> On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:40 AM, "Seven (aka Arnulf)"
>>>> <seven at arnulf.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is
>>>>> the shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we
>>>>> will make sure that we do not lose "public" and "open".
>>>>
>>>> "Public" => supported by public monies, may or may not be open
>>>> "Open" => opposite of closed, may or may not be public
>>>>
>>>> Both may or may not overlap.
>>>>
>>>> Just want to confirm if "Public Geospatial Data Committee" is
>>>> indeed the focus of the newly rebooted committee. Looking back at
>>>> the earlier thread, Arnulf had suggested "Open Geospatial Data
>>>> Committee."
>>>
>>> It struck me as sensible that the mailing list is just named
>>> "geodata". OSGeo is all about Open Source software but the very
>>> definition of Open (...) Data is far from as well defined.
>>> Additionally there is a lot of movement in the public administration -
>>> in many cases from
>>> * "I have no idea how we are licensed, but you won't get the data, get
>>> off"
>>> to
>>> * "Yes, it is all free to use, commercially and proprietary, it's been
>>> paid for already".
>>>
>>> NZ is a great example, here a very shortened summary (correct me if
>>> wrong):
>>>
>>> 1. They created maps. Oblivious of licensing.
>>> 2. They went a bit digital.
>>> 3. They sold the digital part to a private company.
>>> 4. They had to buy their own data back from the priv. comp. bit by bit.
>>> 5. Now it is all available and gets moved into OSM sensibly.
>>>
>>> Others are somewhere between 1 and 5 and my hopes would be that OSGeo
>>> can help nudge them along towards 5+.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Arnulf
>>> ..
>

-- 
Matthias Müller
Dipl.-Geogr. | Research Associate

Technische Universität Dresden
Geoinformation Systems
01062 Dresden

Phone: +49 351 463-31953
Fax: +49 351 463-35879
Mail: Matthias_Mueller at tu-dresden.de

www: http://tu-dresden.de/fgh/geo/gis

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4732 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Kryptografische Unterschrift
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geodata/attachments/20120730/7c78490f/attachment-0001.bin>