<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Liz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edodd@billiau.net">edodd@billiau.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Shalabh wrote:<br>
> While I am not advocating a fork (I am anyway voting a yes to ODBL), I dont<br>
> think a single community is always the answer. Single communities tend to<br>
> get static for the lack of competition. All successful open source projects<br>
> have parallels, whether through forking or because of different organic<br>
> origins. So I dont think if OSM has a parallel because of forking, it would<br>
> be bad. Gives people more choices to choose from and thats what freedom is<br>
> all about.<br>
<br>
</div>Honestly I'm happy to have GoogleMap as the competitor.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Sorry, google is anyway not the only competitor. India already has mapmyindia offering maps and navigation instruments. Need I say, OSM is nowhere near being used for that because we have so little data. I am sure all geographies have their own local competition as well. So, a market with 2 competitors (OSM and Google) is neither real, nor possible. The world as a maket for mapping and geodata based applications is too large to be served by the bad G and the good OSM. I dont have any delusions about OSM's grandeur.<br>
<br>So, the faster we reconcile to the difference of opinion we seem to have on the license issue, the faster we move forward, whether forked or not.<br><br>Regards,<br>Shalabh<br></div></div>