pcplantdb

[Chad Knepp <pyg@galatea.org>]

Stephanie Gerson writes:
 > hi again folks,
 > 
 > Right on, I'm pleased with all these correspondences ;)
 > 
 > A few super-quick notes:
 > 
 > --"I do have a strong philosophical objection to participating in
 > any project creating intellectual property where the product is not
 > free as in open source (google for "reasonable use"). Initially my
 > objections, and my reluctance to participate, where around the
 > choice of Thinkmap as a core part of the project. Although that has
 > changed there is still the item of licensing images from PFAF. I am
 > willing to buy the images from PFAF but I am not OK with
 > encumbering the project with non-free IP. For that matter, I think
 > it would be a nice token to buy the PFAF dataset (even though it is
 > free already) to compensate them for their efforts."
 > 
 > We are no longer planning to use Thinkmap - if we use a GBI for the
 > front-end, it would be TouchGraph which is open-source (didn't it
 > say so in the proposal?  If not, I must have sent the wrong
 > draft...)  Anyways, I certainly agree with this concern, and in
 > terms of practicing what we preach, we should certainly use what is
 > already available, in this case TouchGraph.  And licensing from
 > PFAF would be a wonderful idea, and way to compensate for their
 > efforts - plus, I like the idea of this project serving to help
 > other similar and already-existing initiatives.  I did include this
 > in the budget, so it would be a wonderful thing if funding came in
 > and we could license from PFAF.

I see I did a pretty poor job of explaining myself here.  What I meant
to say was: 1) I was initially concerned with ThinkMap, but I am not
concerned about using TouchGraph if it has an open source type
license.  I think I was [needlessly] stressing this point to create
awareness about my personal commitment to open source.  2) It is
actually licensing PFAF data/images that I'm against, if this license
does not grant at least non-exclusive copyrights.  In other words I
don't want to include anything in the project that cannot be freely
redistributed.  The PFAF dataset is already distributable under a CC
license which is fine, but the images are not, in my understanding,
available under a license that would allow free redistribution.
Almost completely unrelated to that is I think it would be great to
give PFAF money as part of the project.

My bottom line is that I am only willing to be involved in the project
if it creates a product that is freely accessible and distributable
(ie open source).  <rant> I hold a philosophical ideal that access to
information should not be restricted and that making information
freely available enriches humanity and creates a healthier planet.
This ideal is one of the primary motivations behind my working on
Eden.  I think that helping people learn about permaculture and
sustainability makes the world a better place, and I will exert myself
quite a bit to make that happen.  I don't crash nuclear power plants,
but as an activist for a better society, this is my activism. </rant>
I don't require people to agree with me on this, but I won't willingly
create non-free intellectual property.

 > --"I'm partial to cvs (Concurrent Versions System <http://cvshome.org>)
 > and am willing to manage it at galatea.org or wherever."
 > 
 > Ibiblio said they would offer free hosting and web services, plus 
 > matching funds for these costs.  Is this something different from what we 
 > would get from CVS/galatea.org?  

Nope, cvs is the same everywhere, and I'm not attached to managing
it.  Richard also suggested sourceforge.net which would also be a good
choice.  It has lots of features and this project would qualify.  You
couldn't actually run it on sourceforge, but you could host pretty
much everything else.  Ibibilio might be the best choice yet though.
We could run the project there and they would probably even install
gnats/bugzilla or whatever else we needed.

 > --"I personally can't make much sense, even less any efficient use, of 
 > most wikis I've seen so far"
 > 
 > So let's take this opportunity to change that!  The basic concept of 
 > wikis - that they may be modified by users dynamically - is super 
 > powerful and could be used effectively (we are clearly in the early 
 > learning stages...).  But we will need users to be able to input 
 > information in an effective and sensible way for the database to grow and 
 > be useful, correct?

I've got a really long collaboration architecture rant that I need to
turn loose some time.  Part of what I perceive as a problem with wikis
is related to that.  Many of the rest of my concerns echo John's.
Also, currently wikis are not able to handle very sophisticated types
of information.  They do ok with short bits of text.  Wikipedia is an
excellent application.  The kinds of information I want to be able to
handle are much more diverse and complex than short text blobs.  The
hyperlinking in wiki is also pretty simplistic and rigid.

That said, it would be something to write a wiki better that a wiki.
It is one of the reasons it would be nice to be funded.  I think it
could take six months of serious hacking to get there and that is hard
to spread out into your spare time without loosing track of the goal
or getting discouraged.

 > The fellow from the Threshold Foundation who will be evaluating our
 > project is actually interested in Permaculture *and* has software
 > experience- so he's already warmed up to our project.

Not sure if this would be helpful or not, but PFAF and Eden could be
pointed out as first generation examples of the project.

 > Once again, are the roles I defined in the project proposal
 > correct, or Chad- are you now volunteering to be responsible for
 > back-end?  (Rich, where are you?)  And if you/others need a higher
 > salary than that proposed, do we want to consider other funding
 > sources?

Not to presume, but so far it seems like I have the most programming
experience so that is where I think I can contribute the most.  I am
totally ok with any salary.  So far I've been paying into this
project.

 > I am super confident we can make this happen (although, of course,
 > we are still deciphering what "this" means...)
 > 
 > peace
 > *Stephanie