[talk-au] Active Australian OSM contributors in light of CT/license changes
davey at incanberra.com.au
Thu Jul 7 00:10:51 BST 2011
As others have said..
1) Ive moved to fosm since the lockout
2) Im feeling pretty disillusioned at the whole thing, and seriously
wonder if its not worth just paying 5 bucks for a map that I cannot
share, rather than deal with the politics of a staggered mapping project
3) Ive made a couple of edits, but really am feeling like theres so much
duplicated work now that its almost just not worth bothering
Sadly, I think others are starting to fall into these groups too, which
is a pity as Ive just discovered some huge unmapped areas around the
snowy mountains that I have lots of GPX tracks from (but unfortunately
almost zero aerial imagery, from nearmap, bing, any of them). Its hard
to get motivation to do work, in the knowledge that either a) work will
be deleted or b) someone will have a huge headache trying to merge any
work if it is duplicated.
On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 22:35 +1000, Chris Barham wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 21:29, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Are you moving to the fosm db? If so, great! Less problems with trying to
> > merge your data into fosm, and we can all get back to mapping. Do you have
> > any concerns over the switch?
> I have concerns. The FAQ here gives valid reasons 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."
> 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.
> As an example everyone has heard of MySQL, but what about Maria?
> Mysql - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql#Forks_of_MySQL
> 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. Cries
> of "We're more open" don't help when you
> can't rustle up the hosting fees or development volunteers. So a fork
> must become popular. More popular than other forks or the parent
> project. Was this the real reason for your post with mention of FOSM
> (and no other OSM spin-offs), and seeding "fear uncertainty and doubt"
> regarding *possible* data deletion.. you were recruiting?
> I'd like to think all this rather dull licence bickering will play out
> and OSM will continue and strengthen. It's sad that people with
> agendas are talking up the 'possible' deletion of data, and rushing
> off to fork. That energy could have been used towards working on ways
> of keeping or replacing the data in OSM. A satisfactory local example
> where things turned out well is where Nearmap made it's generous offer
> to allow pre-existing data to remain under the new licence. However
> on this list there was little rejoicing, there was a lot of picking
> over the actual wording of their offer; looking at the legal-eze,
> hairsplitting terminology or imagined loopholes in order to justify
> the fork projects existence.
> Have fun. Cheers,
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Talk-au