<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
On 30/08/10 14:54, Mikel Maron wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:946486.14755.qm@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div
style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div
style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font
face="Trebuchet MS">Forking
has been well explored on the lists, and here. If someone could give a
neutral account in the wiki, that would be a good contribution.</font><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think this is a good idea but based on the discussion, we have some
fundamental issues to cover. Once the discussion begins to slow, I
suggest we can document some of the ideas on the wiki.<br>
<br>
On 30/08/10 13:44, Frederik Ramm wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C7BA796.8000301@remote.org" type="cite"><br>
If it is OSM administered then maybe we're not talking about a fork,
but about dual licensing? <br>
</blockquote>
Yes, that could be worth considering. I did not intend to include this
possibility in my original idea. I imagined several independent
databases under different licenses (and yes, there would generally be
divergence). I am occasionally pro-PD-like licensing but there are
several to choose from and a multiple PD-like license would seem to be
a through solution. I can't see much call for dual licensing CT/ODbL
with a 2nd license at the moment - unless it is CC-BY-SA (but the LWG
can worry about that).<br>
<br>
On 30/08/10 10:22, Oliver wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C7B7841.2000505@googlemail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<font face="Trebuchet MS"><br>
I think it is clear that with the effort put in the license change the
idea to handle a fork under the umbrella of the OSMF is not capable of
winning a majority within the OSMF. Otherwise it would make more sense
to establish an ODbL fork rather than changing the license of the
primary database.</font><br>
</blockquote>
Interesting point, but I don't see the need for a vote of OSMF
membership (yet or possibly at all). We are getting ahead of
ourselves... (Side note to my thread on "consensus": since when does
OSMF membership votes determine the direction of OSM?)<br>
<br>
On 30/08/10 17:28, Jim Brown wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">At any given time,
the total data you can use for anything is limited to a single
database.
Having multiple data sets is a binary condition where choosing one
excludes
using the others. Let's say we have two data sets A and B, A has 1m
POI, B has
750k POI and between them they have 1.25m distinct POI. The 1.25m
number is
irrelevant as no one can use it, they can use 1m or 750k. And the
management of
the 500k overlap data is totally wasted effort detracting from mapping
and
editing.</blockquote>
I feel like we are both repeating ourselves, but this won't go into an
infinite loop... I hope. In what follows, my tone attempts to be more
concise than my previous email. It might come off as rather
argumentative, but this is not the intent - sorry in advance basically!
For other readers, basically I attempt to pick apart Jim's points but I
don't advance anything new.<br>
<br>
So, for a single user, yes. But for different individual users, the
quantity of data is not the only consideration to make a database the
preferable or usable one. For example, the license is different. Users
want or need different licenses. Therefore both databases are utilized.
>From my previous example [1], are you saying only one database fork of
Australia is "useful"? Specifically answering this point might provide
me with some insight into your thinking.<br>
<br>
Your argument seems to have the conclusion that only one GIS database
is ever need in the whole world for any purpose ("USABLE data is the
amount in a single database"), which is clearly absurd. (I am taking a
literal reading, as you suggested). If you admit other databases have
their uses, for what ever reason, then forks could in principle be
useful.<br>
<br>
Also, I am an existentialist. This means I think something is valued if
(and only if) we think it so. Some people think forks are valuable.
Therefore forks are valuable (at least to those people). You are of
course entitled to your opinion that they are not, but don't assume
everyone is like you. Cloudmade wants a global and comprehensive
database, fair enough but there are other users in the world.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:33309BF8D82798428226C7D50C11065105182780C7@sha-exch9.shared.ifeltd.com"
type="cite">
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p></o:p></p>
As soon as someone edits only one, then that is game over for that
entry.</div>
</blockquote>
That is far from certain to occur.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:33309BF8D82798428226C7D50C11065105182780C7@sha-exch9.shared.ifeltd.com"
type="cite">
<div class="Section1"><o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p></o:p>The difference is in the scope of
impact, not the quality
of the impact.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
[snip]<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:33309BF8D82798428226C7D50C11065105182780C7@sha-exch9.shared.ifeltd.com"
type="cite">
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">the decision to use a tool, write a tool,
fork a tool,
change the source code license of a tool or discontinue the use of a
tool has
no lasting impact outside the authors/users of the tool. <o:p><br>
</o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
And the decision to change or fork a database has no lasting impact
outside its authors/users! I don't see a difference between diversity
in tools and databases, apart from the number of users. Ok, so the OSM
database has more users than a single tool. So what? (I am not calling
for reckless action, I am just pointing out I don't agree with
your/Jim's point.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:33309BF8D82798428226C7D50C11065105182780C7@sha-exch9.shared.ifeltd.com"
type="cite">
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">Having a forked database impacts EVERY
mappers who wants
to map an area by constraining the set of data they see as what is
already
there (they must choose a data set to map against). It also impacts
every user
of the map data who has to choose between datasets to work with. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ok, so a choice of databases would exist. So what?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:33309BF8D82798428226C7D50C11065105182780C7@sha-exch9.shared.ifeltd.com"
type="cite">
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Consequently, I think that any forks are
permanent
divisions of the project and do not add any value to the project.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
That doesn't follow from the fact that the database has many users
(large scope), or a choice of databases exists.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:33309BF8D82798428226C7D50C11065105182780C7@sha-exch9.shared.ifeltd.com"
type="cite">
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"> If the goal
is to "create and provide free geographic data" as you say then we do
that less well in a forked world as the data is both less complete and
less
accurate in any single fork that it would be in a unified database. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I don't agree with your premise. You need to establish that forking
results in less completeness (which is far from certain) and less
accuracy (ditto). And even then, your conclusion doesn't follow from
that premise, either! (Accuracy and completeness are not the only
attributes of databases. What about license, format, availability,
richness, etc?)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:33309BF8D82798428226C7D50C11065105182780C7@sha-exch9.shared.ifeltd.com"
type="cite">
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The costs of a fork are pretty extreme. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
I don't agree that "costs of a fork are pretty extreme". Perhaps you
can back that up with a concrete example? (You probably think you did,
but I don't see it.)<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:33309BF8D82798428226C7D50C11065105182780C7@sha-exch9.shared.ifeltd.com"
type="cite">
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">A fork
completely divides the project. This is because the data is no longer
common
across the forks and I would question the capacity of the community
(mappers,
coders, admins and everyone) to support multiple distinct projects.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
This is an exaggeration. A PD-like fork would not be completely
independent, as data would flow from PD to the other datasets. There
would be some areas of commonality (and some areas that diverge). The
tools are the same, too. And many individual mappers are shared.
Therefore it does not "completely divide the project".<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:33309BF8D82798428226C7D50C11065105182780C7@sha-exch9.shared.ifeltd.com"
type="cite">
<div class="Section1">
<p class="MsoPlainText"> It would
be like the Wikipedia foundation deciding to host a second Wikipedia
site under
a different license.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
And if there was some advantages in doing so, they might consider it.
Your point?<br>
<br>
As you probably can guess from above, I don't think there are any
viable arguments to be made, using these abstract principles, against
forking (such as I feel Jim has attempted). I have attempted to
addressed every one of Jim's points. However, I can think of many
practical problems that are far more worrying. Perhaps we should move
on to those?<br>
<br>
I don't know if anyone else cares to wade into this discussion and say
if forks could, in principle or in practice, provide value or are they
always a waste of time? We (or I) probably could do with some
perspective...<br>
<br>
TimSC<br>
<br>
[1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/strategic/2010-August/000138.html">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/strategic/2010-August/000138.html</a><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>