<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
All,<br>
<br>
Just to mix it up a bit. (and it's probably been said already, I can't
believe I just came up with it)<br>
<br>
How about :<br>
<br>
"Open Geo Foundation" - OGF<br>
<br>
I didn't do any comprehensive searches, but a quick Google doesn't turn
up anything confusing for OGF<br>
<br>
It's short, not cute at all, says it all, and seems to address
everything I've read this morning.<br>
<br>
bobb<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Frank Warmerdam wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid931f8ea90602010526yf2d7970u117893535961f0d9@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 2/1/06, Tyler Mitchell <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tylermitchell@shaw.ca"><tylermitchell@shaw.ca></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I also think that "open source" carries some weight but some of it is 'bad'
weight. There are very ambitious marketing campaigns that malign "open
source" and other campaigns that seem to aim to twist the term "open" until
it is meaningless. While open source is a central philosophy to the
foundation, it is something we identify with, but not something we need to
cling to for identifying us. Our projects will have plenty of merits apart
from our licensing philosophy.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Tyler,
In my opinion "Open Source" or "Free (as in freedom)" is the
fundamental philosophy of the foundation. As much as some
might try and malign open source, I don't think we can in way
shy away from it. It may not need to be in the name, but it needs
to be in the first paragraph on the web site.
Furthermore, if it came down to an acronym type name, I
would *much* prefer OSGF (Open Source Geospatial Foundation)
to OGSF (Open Geospatial Software Foundation) as the later
loses the assurance that the software is truely free. Open is
easily abused, but "Open Source" can be given a specific meaning
by reference to the OSD (Open Source Definition).
To further stress this point, I think it ought to be written into the
"constitution" that the foundation itself only adopts projects that
have OSI approved licenses, and that the foundation board
shall not have the power to alter foundation owned code to a non
OSI license.
I think it is rare that I get sticky about FOSS political correctness
but as we set down the bedrock of our foundation I think it is
important to have this principle clear.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:warmerdam@pobox.com">warmerdam@pobox.com</a>
light and sound - activate the windows | <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://pobox.com/%7Ewarmerdam">http://pobox.com/~warmerdam</a>
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:discuss@lists.mapserverfoundation.org">discuss@lists.mapserverfoundation.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.mapserverfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss">http://lists.mapserverfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>