[Talk-GB] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open (was: Re: Yet another trunk road query - A495)

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Fri Jan 1 23:23:47 GMT 2010


     I'm breaking this out of talk-gb and into talk.

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Sadly [the openmtbmap author] 
> refuses to open-source his code 
> (http://openmtbmap.org/faq/#i-would-like-to-have-a-look-into-the-style-file-for-mkgmap), 
> which is entirely his prerogative but a shame nonetheless.

Maybe it is time for us at OSM to make a distinction between

(a) open projects in the sense and spirit of OSM, where scripts, style 
files, and everything else is open and license-wise available for 
everyone to look at and build upon, and

(b) proprietary projects, whether of commercial or private nature, which 
we are still happy to have using our data and which we will still linkt 
to and all, but which we do not consider "part of the family".

We cannot, and do not want to, trademark the words "open", "free" and 
the like, but I think we could be a little bit more assertive about whom 
we consider to be a kindred spirit and who is doing his own thing, and 
apply the tiniest amount of pressure for people to upgrade from (b) to (a).

I think many of us will be surprised how many "cool OSM projects" 
actually fall into the (b) category.

To make it absolutely clear, this is not about forcing anyone to do 
anything, about licenses or anything - it is just about saying loud and 
clear what we like, and giving those who do what we like a pat on the 
back while telling those who don't that we would respect their great 
work even more if they were open like us.


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

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list