All,<br><br>This is a great thought-provoking discussion.<br><br>Thinking about the U.S. geodata released in the MrSID format. I think this may be the best way to show the return on the taxpayers' investment in the data. The vast majority of citizens don't want to manipulate these datasets; they only want to view them. The MrSID format with USGS topo maps and USDA county compressed mosaics makes them available to many more people than a more open format would.<br>
<br>For those of us who want to manipulate these datasets with our geospatial OSS, alternatives are available. Perhaps someday there will be a widely adopted open format that can compete with MrSID but for today the MrSID option provides for the best access for the largest number of people.<br>
<br>Regards, Richard<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Landon Blake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lblake@ksninc.com">lblake@ksninc.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
MPG,<br>
<br>
I didn't mean to shine a spotlight on the USDA's use of MRSID. It is one<br>
of several examples of an attitude I was trying to describe.<br>
<br>
I think you and I respectfully disagree with one another on one aspect<br>
of this debate. In my humble opinion sharing data acquired with tax<br>
payer funding in a format that is easily accessed without the use of<br>
proprietary software should be the most important factor in a file<br>
format decision by a government agency. (Well, maybe the second most<br>
important. The most important is the license that data is released<br>
under.)<br>
<br>
A company is well within its rights to use and promote a proprietary<br>
file format. I admit that file format may even have awesome benefits<br>
when compared to the best equivalent open file format.<br>
<br>
Just don't ask me to be happy when my government decides to use this<br>
proprietary file format. I think it short changes the citizens of the<br>
government and give that company an unfair advantage over its<br>
competitors.<br>
<br>
I'd much rather see the government support a company that was trying to<br>
build its business around open technology standards.<br>
<br>
In my opinion, you can't have it all. If you want to build your business<br>
model around a proprietary file format like DWG or MRSID you should be<br>
prepared to deal with a little push back from open source and open<br>
technology advocates, especially when their money (in the form of tax<br>
dollars) is involved.<br>
<br>
One of the greatest things ESRI ever did was publish the Shapefile<br>
specification. I don't doubt they have a software monopoly of sorts, but<br>
I will always respect them for that move. In many respects it has<br>
changed my view of their company. I don't know that the free software<br>
movement on the geospatial side of things would have been widely adopted<br>
without that standard way to share data.<br>
<br>
But alas, I am just one man and my opinion doesn't count for much in the<br>
greater scheme of things!<br>
<br>
I appreciate having an open source advocate like you at LizardTech, and<br>
please don't take my e-mail as a personal attack. The use of open file<br>
formats by our governments is just something I feel strongly about.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Landon<br>
</font><div class="im"><br>
<br>
</div><div><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org">Discuss@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>