[talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Wed Jul 6 23:58:28 BST 2011


>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 21:29, Andrew Harvey<andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>> I have concerns.  The FAQ here gives valid reasons to fork an open
>> source project:
>>
>> http://fossfaq.com/questions/52/what-does-it-mean-to-fork-an-open-source-project
>> and the multiple forks of OSM may have ignored the advice to only fork
>> "When you have exhausted all other options."

What "other option" has been ignored?

>> Forks are not a guaranteed success.  They may have good reasons,
>> ideals and differing opinions, but the parent project has a brand, and
>> for OSM it's a powerful one.

Very much agreed.  Although in this case it's a bit different, because
the parent project is actually the one doing the forking.  FOSM will
be keeping all the data.  OSMF will be keeping only a fraction of it.

>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 21:29, Andrew Harvey<andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
>> Personally I don't care about the licence.  I feel that the forks and
>> this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the
>> projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting
>> match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted
>> over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map.

The problem is that the "license" (really more of an EULA) in this
case is so bad that a map "licensed" under it isn't even an open map.

I agree this is going to be a drain on the projects.  But we've tried
to stop the change from happening, and have failed.

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> This is exactly right.

It's right that the license doesn't matter?



More information about the Talk-au mailing list