[OSGeo-Discuss] Proprietary GIS on our OSGeo website

Margherita Di Leo diregola at gmail.com
Wed Sep 20 05:08:42 PDT 2017


On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Helmut Kudrnovsky <hellik at web.de> wrote:

> Dear OSGeo community
> I want to bring you a discussion on a github ticket about linking to
> "similar proprietary products" [1] to your attention.
> My comment there:
> "I support and concur with Venka that the item "Similar Proprietary
> Products" should be removed. There isn't only one proprietary GIS software
> out there, there are several others. IMHO such comparisons may be part of
> e.g. a reviewed scientific paper/elaboration, where our OSGeo projects - if
> they want to - may link to. I see no added value for OSGeo to serve such
> links. As already elsewhere mentioned by me, reciprocity is the key if such
> items are listed, but I can't see this happen. "

I agree. I don't understand it either.

> I'm pretty much convinced that more effort to help our OSGeo projects
> improving on every level (e.g. documentation, reach out, testing, etc) is
> the key rather than linking to proprietary software. One of such
> opportunities may be the upcoming Google Code In (GCI) 2017 e.g. to produce
> nice screenshots for documentation, produce some fancy videos etc. based on
> tiny little tasks for students aged 13 to 17. A good invest in the young
> who will be our OSGeo's future.

Thanks for mentioning that, Helli. May I add that suitable tasks for
students may include design of web pages and / or promotional material, see
for example
I take the liberty of cc'ing the marketing committee, because it would be
nice to see some members joining the code-in mentors pool. Let us know that
you want to join, writing an email to gsoc-admin at osgeo.org and I'll send
you the subscription form.
Hoping that I didn't go much off topic respect to the original meaning of
this email

Thank you


Margherita Di Leo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20170920/61bc3e94/attachment.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list