[Geodata] Rebooting this committee

[Mr. Puneet Kishor]

On Jul 30, 2012, at 8:35 AM, Matthias Müller <Matthias_Mueller at tu-dresden.de> wrote:

> Interesting discussion!
> 
> What about choosing the word "Free" for "public and open"? There's already a good concept for free software which can be adapted for free geodata:
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html


Good gosh no. The GNU idea of free, which applies to software and not very well to data, is not considered open by many.

Am afraid we might get stuck on the choice of name here, but it is worth giving it some thought. Personally, I would like to see both "public" and "open" included in the conversation, with the clear understanding that they are two separate though perhaps overlapping, in part, concepts.


> Important notice: "'free software' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer'."
> 
> A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
> 
> 1. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
> 2. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
> 3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
> 4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So geodata is completely "free" if the following conditions apply:
> 
> 1. The freedom to use the data, for any purpose (freedom 0). (Here a precondition would be public access -  the ability to fing and get the data)
> 2. The freedom to study the data, and change it so it does fit your purpose as you wish (freedom 1). (E.g. transform it, or correct errors)
> 3.  The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
> 4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions (see 2nd point) to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.
> 
> > 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is the
> > shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we will make
> > sure that we do not lose "public" and "open".
> Well, what about "free geodata"?
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Matthias
> 
> Am 30.07.2012 14:01, schrieb Arnulf Christl:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On 07/30/2012 12:43 PM, Mr. Puneet Kishor wrote:
>>> (resending, after subscribing to the list)
>> 
>> Thanks Puneet.
>> 
>>> On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:40 AM, "Seven (aka Arnulf)"
>>> <seven at arnulf.us> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 2. Rename "Public Geospatial Data Committee" to "Geodata". It is
>>>> the shortest and broadest we can get at the same time. And we
>>>> will make sure that we do not lose "public" and "open".
>>> 
>>> "Public" => supported by public monies, may or may not be open
>>> "Open" => opposite of closed, may or may not be public
>>> 
>>> Both may or may not overlap.
>>> 
>>> Just want to confirm if "Public Geospatial Data Committee" is
>>> indeed the focus of the newly rebooted committee. Looking back at
>>> the earlier thread, Arnulf had suggested "Open Geospatial Data
>>> Committee."
>> 
>> It struck me as sensible that the mailing list is just named
>> "geodata". OSGeo is all about Open Source software but the very
>> definition of Open (...) Data is far from as well defined.
>> Additionally there is a lot of movement in the public administration -
>> in many cases from
>> * "I have no idea how we are licensed, but you won't get the data, get
>> off"
>> to
>> * "Yes, it is all free to use, commercially and proprietary, it's been
>> paid for already".
>> 
>> NZ is a great example, here a very shortened summary (correct me if
>> wrong):
>> 
>> 1. They created maps. Oblivious of licensing.
>> 2. They went a bit digital.
>> 3. They sold the digital part to a private company.
>> 4. They had to buy their own data back from the priv. comp. bit by bit.
>> 5. Now it is all available and gets moved into OSM sensibly.
>> 
>> Others are somewhere between 1 and 5 and my hopes would be that OSGeo
>> can help nudge them along towards 5+.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Arnulf
>> ..