Open Source... Mining?

farrellj writes "In mining, geophysical data is the "source code" of the industry, and is usually guarded as closely as Microsoft guards their source code for their programs, sometimes even more so. But one Canadian mining company opened up their data, and reaped the rewards of Open Source in higher profits. Read all about it at: FastCompany. NOTE: Originally seen on Linux Today."

Comments

Open source comparison is a sham

[gewalker]

Come, open source as usually perceived and promoted is that by "contributing to the public software" and "scratching an itch", much good comes to all as you everyone can then use this freely.

The valuable use of this data is pretty much restricted to the property owners of the gold mine. This was just a fancy version of a contest (not a random-lottery style one), whereby skilled competitors vie for the prize, but one without an entry fee, and no signup form. The data is inherently useless (in terms of mineral rights) to anyone that is not the property owner, or interested in control over what happends to the property (hostile takeover threat).

If Microsoft had been the property owner, this story would have been on Slashdot, decrying the shameless use of skilled dupes working for Microsoft and getting a small return on their investment of time & talent. The mine owners were clever enough to capitalize on the positive name association with "Open Source" more than anything. A smart business that take a gamble (hostile takeover threat, etc.) that paid off well.

Good PR Prospects

[Alien54]

Although the prize money, which Archibald's team shared with Taylor Wall & Associates, barely covered the cost of the project, the publicity has boosted the firm's business. "It would have taken us years to get the recognition in North America that this project gave us overnight," he says.

These are the folks that came up with the 3D mine map - so it looks like it was a good investment for them.

And so it looks like the Open source model has been proven valid in areas outside of computing.

It's not actually "open source" ...

[Taco Cowboy]

From the story I've just read, I get the feeling that the "opening up of the data" does not sounds like "open source".

Rather, I get the feeling that it sounds more like BOUNTY HUNTING.

Like bounty hunters, there is a target. All you need to do is to get the target and you get your bounty. That's just what the company does.

Re:What's the incentive to be secretive?

[RatOmeter]

It's more than just tradition. My experience is more from the petroleum exploration arena, so I'll speak it its terms.

Almost no property owner owns the mineral rights to their land, only the 'surface' rights. The mineral rights (in most cases) were seperated years ago.

Exploration for petroleum involves statistical analysis as well as physical discovery. Physical discovery used to involve guessing, based on prior performance or just a hunch, where there might be oil or gas. These days, there's a lot more technology to be applied. One method involves placing sensitive seismic instruments in a variety of locations. Then large machines called 'thumpers' are put in place to cause deliberate seismic disturbances. The effects of these disturbances and underground interference to them are measured, mapped and analysed using the instrumentation that's scattered about.

This type of physical discovery is not cheap. It consists of:
expensive instruments
expensive machines
well-paid geologists and other crew
paying landowners for use of their land.
costom analysis software
and more

The best ways for a venture like that to make money are to (a) sell the information to mineral rights owners, or (b) use the information to drill for petroleum themselves.

In case (a), making the information available at no charge is contrary to the business plan. In (b), they would need to acquire/lease the necessary mineral rights and it wouldn't pay advertise what they were looking for where.

It isn't a sham, it is a hint at something greater

[FreeUser]

Open source comparison is a sham

No, it isn't a sham, but it is a poor choice of wording.

Free Software, Free Media, and Open Source are subsets of a much more fundamental, and important, concept, namely freedom of information, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression, which together might be termed simply freedom were it not that that particular word has been so abused by pundits over the last century as to have lost much of its meaning. These freedoms are antithetical to secrecy at their most basic levels, and in their consiquences, whether that is secrecy of information, secrecy of methodology, or secrecy of design (to name just three).

So, while mapping the benefits of open and free information to those of open and free software is a bit of a misnomer, clearly the underlying theme that free information is, unsurprisingly, bringing the same benefits to this particular mining company that free source code does to software companies is a valid parallel to draw, in that these benefits are a consiquence of freedom of knowledge and freedom of information, in other words, of the freedoms being granted, of which free software and free geological data are but two small examples.

It is a shame that our intellectual property laws are such that these freedoms must be granted rather than assumed by default, making them (and their obvious benefits) so much rarer in our society than they need to be.