[OSGeo-Discuss] Free

[Arnulf Christl]

On Wed, March 7, 2007 15:37, Josef Assad wrote:
> Hello OSGeo community,
>
> I am a little new in here, so a quick two line introduction; Ive been
> involved with free software for something like 8 years now in almost
> all capacities except programming it (much to the fortune of code
> quality everywhere). Advocacy, program management, licensing, community
> building, etc. Grass roots to enterprise (UN agencies, government,
> etc.).
>
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:08:06 +1100
> Tim Bowden <tim.bowden at westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> This thread has really mutated but fwiw, here goes:
>
> Yes, this thread has gotten thrown a bit :) Back to the original
> discussion around whether it makes sense to let Oracle in given the
> proposal Paul showed us. My two cents are:
>
> 1. I am missing the point around dissecting the expressions open source
> and free software. From my perspective, OSGeo is about the kind of
> software which will generally adhere to the four basic freedoms[1].
> I prefer the French expression for free software: logiciels libres
> (excuse my horrible French). Liberty. What we are seeing from Oracle in
> this presentation does not address that core ethos in any manner.
> 2. Oracle does provide some free-of-charge systems, but that clearly is
> neither free software nor open source. In fact, it is debatable whether
> their products which are free of license costs are free of costs in
> general (cue long-winded discussion on costs of getting locked in to
> their platform, costs of requiring more fancy hardware than if one had
> gone with more resource-efficient open source systems, etc.)
> 3. In my mind, OSGeo is what the name sounds like; we are a boolean AND
> operation of interest in geospatial systems AND open source. If
> Oracle were to be let in simply because they are addressing one of our
> thematic interests then I might ping the firefox team and see if they
> want in also! :)
> 4. I am not seeing any explicit nods towards open standards (OGCs
> domain, I think) either in the proposal.
>
> I think its great to be inclusive, and I think it is worth taking a
> little trouble to help Oracle make a better match to what this
> community represents and is trying to advocate. There must certainly be
> plenty of clever people there, and if we could give them guidelines for
> what kind of proposal they could come up with which gives better
> congruency with the twin themes of geospatial systems and open source,
> then everyone would be richer for the effort.
>
> What I would not agree with however would be showing flexibility in
> commitment to what open source fundamentally is in the name of being
> inclusive. This does not mean we chase people off with a stick if they
> mutter the word windows, but it does not mean either that we have
> proprietary shops roll in and set up stands. In this case and with a
> major proprietary vendor such as Oracle, there would be the need to be
> extra careful about the way they are brought in since we might be
> talking about different kinds of free. That can only confuse people
> rather than enlighten them, and we do hope that one of the objectives
> is more enlightened people not less :)
>
> There are fields out there where proprietary systems are entrenched and
> where the field could not get ahead if the proprietary vendor were not
> there; geospatial systems as a field is fortunate not to be one of those
> and we seem to have an extremely solid stack. This merits protection
> from dilution of the concept (Free) from which this stack arose, in my
> opinion.
>
> So, in a situation like this (apologies for rehashing; I want to make
> sure my personal position is clear in this matter), I would
> emphatically vote in for Oracle but not with that proposal.
>
> Apologies for a long rant!
>
>
> Josef

Thanks a lot.

Arnulf.

(I just removed the quotes around the Free in the subject ot make sure...)