[Geo4All] UN SDG mapping book updates

[Suchith Anand]

Thank you Cameron for sharing this info. 

Best wishes,

Suchith

________________________________________
From: GeoForAll <geoforall-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
Sent: 02 June 2017 9:50 PM
To: geoforall at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [Geo4All] UN SDG mapping book updates

Suthith,

Extending from Anthony's comments, I suggest ask which license will be
used for material in the UN SDG mapping book. If available under an open
license it would be in line with UN views of sustainability [1], and it
shouldn't matter who or how many organisations publish the material.

Warm regards, Cameron

[1] "The United Nations views open-source technology as a critical
enabler for implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals,
offering the potential to facilitate global innovation and empower
individuals and organizations, as well as the private and public sectors."
“United Nations Headquarters to Host World’s Largest Mission-Driven
Open-Source Technology Conference, 8-17 July 2016”;
https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/pi2160.doc.htm



On 2/6/17 10:21 pm, Arnulf Christl (Metaspatial) wrote:
> Am 2017-06-02 um 10:53 schrieb Anthony Robinson:
>> Once again I feel like the GeoForAll effort is hampered by a strict
>> dogma
>> that tests every geospatial initiative with a purity evaluation that
>> virtually nothing will be able to meet. And once again it's an argument
>> against doing something with no proposed viable alternative.
>
> Dear Anthony,
>
> by all means, please get GeoForAll publications on Esri press, but
> maybe not exclusively. I'll be happy to contribute an introduction on
> the philosophy of open access in software, education and (while we are
> at it) geospatial data.
>
> The term "Dogma" is generally applied to a strong belief that the ones
> adhering to are not willing to rationally discuss [1]. I don't think
> that OSGeo or GeoForAll can be blamed for not rationally discussing
> openness. Quite the contrary, one of our prime missions is to actually
> start and promote a dialog on openness and to show how restrictive
> models hamper development and competition (which is our belief,
> philosophy and may appear as a Dogma).
>
> OSGeo has a very transparent "purity evaluation" for the openness for
> software: Stick to one of the accepted licenses. Anybody can meet this
> criteria because it is a simple choice.
>
> I can see that you have educated 100.000+ professionals in 80
> countries with a Coursera course. Congratulations to that effort, this
> is really cool! Unfortunately you chose to use a proprietary platform
> which is developed and owned by a business that depends on income from
> restricting licenses. This makes the future of this software depend
> entirely on the entrepreneurial whims of a few business leaders. I am
> currently working on tenure security in poor countries and projects
> invariably fail because local authorities and communities cannot
> afford to sustain the license cost of the proprietary software which
> was introduced by well meaning aid organizations after the project
> ends. This is gruesome.
>
> No questions asked: There may well be great people producing great
> results with proprietary software, including employees of proprietary
> businesses. Nonetheless the future of proprietary software is
> controlled and restricted by a few. This is something that OSGeo can
> prevent from happening for any software project wishing to become an
> OSGeo project. It has to go through an incubation process where
> questions are asked around ownership and influence on a software -
> additionally to having an Open Source license.
>
>
> And lastly, yes there is a simple and viable alternative proposed:
> Publish elsewhere. There are many open access options these days.
>
>
> Enjoy,
> Arnulf
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
>

On 3/6/17 1:48 am, Maria Antonia Brovelli wrote:
>
> Thank you Suchith for having raised this problem. I want to try to
> answer in a global way. ESRI is just a detail.
>
>
> In my opinion "proprietary/closing" and "sustainable development" are
> not good companions. We want a sustainable development for whom? Is it
> possible to ensure a sustainable development for everybody if we don't
> share knowledge?
> My answer is no. Therefore openess is a necessary (even if  not
> sufficient) condition for going toward that sustainability we are
> speaking about.
> Said that, I understand that the way is very long. But please,
> everyone who reads, have in mind that the relevant point is the future
> of the humanity, as Suchith recalls us everyday. And, if we want to go
> toward a sustainable world, proprietary/closing has to be dismissed.
> But at the end all of us, we are humans and weak and full of
> contraditions, and therefore it is impossible to be coeherent every
> day in everything.
> So,  good to start discussing and possibly deciding which are our
> strategies as community of educators. Once the line is marked ,
> probably it will be easier to decide collectively how to move.
> Concluding, here my question to you: is it possible a sustainable
> development based on a "proprietary/closing" approach?
> I already gave my answer. Waiting for yours.
> A warm hug
> Maria
>
>
>

--
Cameron Shorter
M +61 419 142 254

_______________________________________________
GeoForAll mailing list
GeoForAll at lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall




This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. 

Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this
message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the
author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your
computer system, you are advised to perform your own checks. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as
permitted by UK legislation.