[OSM-talk] [talk-au] Fwd: Re: Why PD is not better for business
pchilds at bcs.org
Fri Dec 11 15:25:10 GMT 2009
2009/12/11 paul youlten <paul.youlten at gmail.com>:
> That sounds bad. Can you give us some examples?
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Peter Childs <pchilds at bcs.org> wrote:
>> 2009/12/11 paul youlten <paul.youlten at gmail.com>:
>>> Clearly all those things, and much more, can and should be mapped.
>>> They can all be seen on the street and they all have public access. I
>>> agree: "If it's a physical entity then it can be mapped." ++
>>> What is less clear is what happens if changing the licence means we
>>> lose "invisible" administrative boundaries and data from areas where
>>> public access is difficult, restricted or non-existent.
>>> For example would be nice to include the boundaries of a UK National
>>> Park or a site of special scientific interest or (dare I say it) the
>>> coastline of Australia - but I don't think it is a "disaster" that
>>> threatens the future of the project if these things are removed
>>> because of a change in the licence.
>> From having seen it in quite a few Open Source projects, it would be a
>> death sentence.
Hmm Maybe these have not all died but the split did cause serious damage.
X (You now have a choice of X.org and XFree86), The split caused a
long halt in development and the original is hardly used now, only the
I'm sure there are others
More information about the talk