[OSM-talk] [talk-au] Fwd: Re: Why PD is not better for business
shalabh.w at gmail.com
Fri Dec 11 16:28:50 GMT 2009
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Peter Childs <pchilds at bcs.org> wrote:
> 2009/12/11 Emilie Laffray <emilie.laffray at gmail.com>:
> > 2009/12/11 Peter Childs <pchilds at bcs.org>
> >> Hmm Maybe these have not all died but the split did cause serious
> >> 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
> >> branch....
> >> Joomla/Mambo
> >> I'm sure there are others
> > Hum, the examples you are choosing are interesting but not for the reason
> > you think. Please note that I am not advocating a fork far from it.
> > In the two cases you cited, the fork is actually very strong, and there
> > very little damage.
> Hmm the Fork is strong? in the case of X XFree86 (ie the original) is
> almost unknown now. and the Fork meant many years of little or no
> development on what is the main graphics sub-system used across
> multiple operating systems.
> Project split for many reasons but I will never think that a split is
> or was a good thing. I would prefer in almost all cases one good tool
> for the job, instead of 3 tools that all do the same job badly.
> Lets work together rather than apart, our strength is in the Union.
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
While I am not advocating a fork (I am anyway voting a yes to ODBL), I dont
think a single community is always the answer. Single communities tend to
get static for the lack of competition. All successful open source projects
have parallels, whether through forking or because of different organic
origins. So I dont think if OSM has a parallel because of forking, it would
be bad. Gives people more choices to choose from and thats what freedom is
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk