[OSGeo-Discuss] Is it possible for properitery GIS vendor to market thier properitery product as Open ?

[María Arias de Reyna]

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 8:32 AM, María Arias de Reyna <
delawen+osgeo at gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a rough-and-tumble competition - we can no longer use the short
>> hand "open" to capture what we do here at OSGeo. We are going to have to
>> wade into these debates with a strong story and clear examples from our
>> community.  We should also expect platforms to be built up around our open
>> source projects (say Carto being built around PostGIS). This is a great way
>> to ensure these projects stay  viable, as long as we keep everyone involved
>> sufficiently encouraged/valued/funded.
>>
>> Oh and to answer your question, the mislead customers may of confused
>> "open source" with "open platform". If we want the distinction clear in the
>> market we need to use organizations such as OSGeo to push that messag
>>
>
> I strongly disagree. We should use the word free as much as we can to get
> our space back, but also we should enfoce recovering the real meaning of
> open. Because leaving "open" to this false open software advocators will
> mean losing an important battle. The next thing will be not being able to
> call open to things that are also free.
>

Maybe this part was not clear enough. I disagree that we can't use the word
"open" to capture what we do. I think we can and should do. And point
everywhere were it is not being correctly used. Being active here is
important *now*, while we still have the meaning not completely perverted
and the companies that do openwashing still play with the idea that they
are "open" in the real sense.


(btw: most of Carto is also open software: https://github.com/CartoDB maybe
not a good example of a closed wrapper over an open software.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20170323/3d0d01f1/attachment-0002.html>