Hi,
OSGeo is an approved 501(c)(3) organization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#501.28c.29.284.29
https://www.osgeo.org/about/
The only contact for (in kind) sponsorship was with Microsoft, and that
did not move forward because they needed another status (401).
Regards,
Angelos
On 1/14/21 11:34 AM, Paul Harwood wrote:
Just a quick question.
Since the FAANGs were the question, do you know if OSGeo has been vetted
and approved as a Foundation by any of the FAANGs?
As I say, when I was involved on the other side for one, they had more than
a 2 year lead time for that process (I don't know if that was universal or
if they solved that problem). If the answer is yes, then that could be a
way forward - and indeed in at least two of FAANGs that I know the
employees have virtual "pots" of both money and time that they can donate
to approved organisations to "give back" - so appealing to the grass
roots could be a way forward.
You might have to spin it as "promoting the value of Geo software to solve
world problems" or some such - since as I say paying for free software is
questionable legal territory.
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 09:00, Angelos Tzotsos <[email protected]> wrote:
Perhaps we could ask some of these organizations to sponsor GDAL through
https://github.com/sponsors/OSGeo which is a recurring sponsorship ?
Angelos
On 1/14/21 12:58 AM, Howard Butler wrote:
On Jan 13, 2021, at 4:28 PM, Nyall Dawson <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 at 06:24, David Strip <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> wrote:
What is the path forward? One path Howard suggests is establishing a
foundation similar to that behind Qgis. Another alternative, probably far more
controversial, is a license change.
I'm pretty clueless regarding licenses -- but this is an interesting
thought. I wonder if any new drivers added to GDAL could be done with
a dual-licensing under both GPL + some other license which requires
ongoing sponsorship of the GDAL project?
License monkey business isn't viable in any way with GDAL. It would just create
confusion and erode trust, which we can't get back if broken.
The big organizations running 100,000,000s of CPU hours extracting information from imagery
they're reading in COGs with GDAL need to be donating substantial resources into an
organization that provides coordination. The last time I did a fund raise with gdalbarn.com
<http://gdalbarn.com/> <http://gdalbarn.com/> I was called out for naming some
of these organizations and expressing my disappointment they couldn't find a way to
participate or simply ignored the request. Maybe they will step forward this time around.
Whether it is in a new foundation or an existing one like NumFocus, substantial
resources need to be dumped in a pot that are earmarked for supporting work
that generates value for the project. Chasing new feature work to subsidize
project maintenance activities is not sustainable in two directions – burn out
for the maintainer and creeping feature-itis for the project.
It's clear what's happened in the past is a combination of luck and
graciousness by both Frank and Even.
Howard
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing
[email protected]https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
President
Open Source Geospatial Foundationhttp://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
--
Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
President
Open Source Geospatial Foundation
http://users.ntua.gr/tzotsos
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
