[OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2018 sponsorship

[María Arias de Reyna]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 4:02 PM, SERGIO ACOSTAYLARA <
sergio.acostaylara at mtop.gub.uy> wrote:

> Stefano, certainly you are NOT the only one. In the past I have expressed
> my concern about this fact. It's as if Monsanto were sponsoring an organic
> food event. I don't think ESRI (or Google or IBM or others) approaches
> OSGeo innocently. This approach should make OSGeo more alert. And distrust
> their intentions. I remember that some years ago ESRI did not let gvSIG
> people even assist an ESRI conference. And now what has changed? That the
> FOSS4G movement is now "cool". So it makes these companies present
> themselves as OS ("we support the OS movement, we even sponsor their
> events", even "we are OS") and it is easier for them to enter certain
> places (later it is more difficult for them to leave). Maybe these
> companies should be asked something more than money in exchange for
> sponsoring the FOSS4G. And see how far they can get with that support to
> the FOSS4G movement...
>

That's a dangerous approach. How do you classify companies that "have to do
something more than money" from companies that don't? If a company have a
mix of open and closed software what happens? If a company contributes a
lot with open software but not on the GIS area, is it good or bad? And the
opposite?

I think we are all aware of the red lines they shouldn't cross. If you feel
more comfortable, we can even write those red lines to make them explicit.
But starting to treat them differently just because their nature... do you
want to ban people coming to our conferences based on... what? That's a
dangerous road. Even if we have suffered that in the past, I am not sure we
should degrade us to that point. We are the good ones here :)

But still, if you want to write the red lines/guidelines explicitly I will
be happy to review and contribute so we can propose them as something more
official. In fact, I realized there are no requirements about what a FOSS4G
should be besides a very abstract concept. Should we do it more explicit?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20180226/b2a25653/attachment.html>