From:
"c nielsen" <nielsencgeo@gmail.com>
Sent: 6/26/2007 12:18:27 AM
To:
gpsstash@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject:

Re: [GPSstash] Re: Geooglecaching


Yup. And they need money too:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising

And they have been heavily funded. My understanding is they also dont pay
for bandwidth.

If there were people with $$ to fund a site, why havent they stepped up to
do it?

Christian


On 6/25/07, Joe wrote:
>
> Actually, I think a site that an open source for websites would be
> wikipedia... sure, it takes things to run, but look, its all controlled
> by the community and some volunteers....
>
> Seth! Leary wrote:
> >
> > All:
> >
> > I find the comparisons that are getting tossed about quite interesting.
> >
> > Running a web site like geocaching.com is not at all analogous to
> creating
> > software. Software (Firefox, IE, Linux, Windows) is a single product
> that
> > gets replicated thousands of times. Nobody comes back to the well
> > until you
> > build a new version. A large website is an organic product that gets
> used
> > directly (not replicated) by thousands of users daily. That places a
> much
> > larger burden on the web site's host/owner if the site is getting used
> as
> > much as geocaching.com is used.
> >
> > Thus, the open-source argument holds little water. If Groundspeak were
> to
> > give away the database, what would happen? The only thing possible;
> > another
> > commercial entity would spring up. If I spend 1,000 hours writing a
> > piece of
> > software and I choose to give it away, it doesn't matter whether I
> > give away
> > one copy or a million; it still cost me 1,000 hours to make and I am
> > out no
> > more and no less. But if I (or Groundspeak) create a web site, it makes
> a
> > huge difference whether one person hits it per month or a million. Look
> at
> > wikipedia. It does not have advertising but it would sink if it were not
> > funded by vast numbers of donation dollars. The money has to come from
> > somewhere.
> >
> > The Bell break-up has already been mentioned. I think it's worth
> pointing
> > out that this is much more comparable than software. Those of us old
> > enough
> > to remember the good old days of Ma Bell will recall that the break-up
> > was a
> > debacle and is still a nightmare. No matter how you slice it, there can
> > really only be one REAL phone company in any given region and everyone
> > else
> > has to rent that company's wires. It's all smoke and mirrors. But
> > perhaps I
> > digress.
> >
> > You can't convince me that Groundspeak could have made an 'admirable'
> > choice
> > (by either keeping the site ad-free and membership-free or giving away
> the
> > database) and it would still be alive and well and as robust as it is
> now
> > unless you can show me a truly comparable example. Firefox is not the
> > example and I don't think that there is one out there.
> >
> > I'm also curious about this remark from Scout: "[Jeremy] had lawyers to
> > threaten lawsuits against others with a different vision for the hobby."
> >
> > Is this a reference to an actual event or just speculation? I don't
> recall
> > this happening.
> >
> > Seth!
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]