[OSGeo-Standards] [OSGeo-Discuss] Orientation standard

[Scott Simmons]

Thanks, Henrique,

I think that you will have to determine how to divide your concept into a part that is valuable to the entire community as a free and open standard and into a part that you can preserve to earn revenue. I do not understand what you mean by “openwashing,” so please better describe how to standardize the circle.

Best Regards,
Scott
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 3:10 AM, Munich Orientation Convention <volksnav at volksnav.de> wrote:
> 
>  
> Hello Scott,
>  
> my license model is very simple: CASE by CASE. The fees can be zero or symbolical (Burundi) and the merit principle should be valid, therefore not collide with the openmania. 
>  
> Now that OGC is reviewing the own corset, it would a good opportunity to consider a forgotten target group which has no other lobbies than inventors: the consumer. 
>  
> 4 billion people would obviously prefer the division of the horizon into 12 instead of 360 directions and prefer station codes www.volksnav.de/TokyoMetro <http://www.volksnav.de/TokyoMetro> instead of none. Our brains need information like www.volksnav.de/orientator/index.htm <http://www.volksnav.de/orientator/index.htm> but lobbies and openmania generate standards like post codes, 360 directions or www.volksnav.de/2directions <http://www.volksnav.de/2directions> . What cost little is worth less, what costs nothing… 
>  
> Would it be possible for OGC to standardize the most of the Convention - e. g. starting with a simple circle www.volksnav.de/r100 <http://www.volksnav.de/r100> - or would this be considered as openwashing?
>  
> Henrique   
>     
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> -          I’m not a missionary but an inventor. Inventors develop systems to cover market gaps expecting the proven merit principle.
> -           
> -          Fortunately or not, the market gap “orientation” would be a matter for authorities and require standardization.
> -           
> -          My experience with classical standardization boards is: they aren’t interested on best but on free standards where only they can increase incomes. So they would standardize a system like annex (division of the horizon into 2 directions) just because it’s free and would ignore a proposal which additionally answers the fundamental questions “where am I?” “where is north?” “where is downtown?” even if I ask for a symbolical merit.
> -           
> -          So a question arises: why should someone invest creativity, time and money on a non-merit basis?
> -           
> -          What costs little is worth less, what costs nothing… looks like post codes, maps of type YouAreHere www.volksnav.de/YouAreHere <http://www.volksnav.de/YouAreHere> etc. The resume is: actual standards can only be suboptimal.
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss <http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20151020/7eee7380/attachment-0001.html>