[Strategic] Fwd: Subject: Forks and such

[Henk Hoff]

Like Jim observed: if the data is forked, the data will diverge. Thats a
simple fact.

All comments about keeping map-icons in sync and being able to use the same
editors does not change that fact.

Brings me to the question *why* a fork? "There are differences in peoples
needs for licensing". Let's say: we want to use some datasources which may
have incompatible licenses.
The suggestion here is to make different database with data under different
licenses (CC-BY-SA db, ODbL db, PD db etc). This way we can import the
datasource in the appropriate database(s). Voila, problem solved. However,
it is only moving the problem.

In the end you still have different databases with different licenses that
are not all interoperatible with eachother. So what have we gained?


2010/8/29 TimSC <mappinglists at sheerman-chase.org.uk>

> On 29/08/10 20:24, Jim Brown wrote:
>
>>
>
>
[cut]

 In essence, unless I am missing the point (and I may be) the ability for
>> any individual mapper to edit upon, and contribute to, multiple forks
>> decreases as the forks diverge.
>>
>>
> The effort needed to contribute to diversing forks increases, but not a
> mapper's ability.
>

... and that is exactly the problem with forking. Mappers may be able to
contribute to different forks. But they won't. Except a few fanatics.


So: what does OSM gain with a fork?


Henk Hoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/strategic/attachments/20100830/6d52848f/attachment.html>