[OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Ok, then let's not use "open". Let's just say some things (where you can 
> look at how they're done as opposed to not being told) are "better" than 
> others.

That was unnecessarily provocative, I admit. I think I will settle for 
the wording:

"relevant material available under free and open license"

And then wherever we list projects that use OSM data, just fill that out 
with a yes or no. I would like to make it more objective than "free and 
open license", but if you put something like "OSI license" there then 
you focus too much on software, whereas the "relevant material" could 
also be a work of art licensed under CC.

Plus, the wording "free and open license" is also what the OSMF license 
working group suggests for the ODbL contributor agreement, so it cannot 
be completely bogus, can it?

(BTW I have no strong opinion on what to show on the main page and what 
not; I think it is ok to show non-open stuff on the main page but it 
should be made clear that it is non-open. If Google were to create a 
cool OSM based map rendering would we list it *without* pointing out 
that it is proprietary?)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"