[OSM-talk] Not-properly-Open-but-called-Open

[Richard Fairhurst]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Your argument about flash players and JVMs leads nowhere; I am not
> talking about openness of the target infrastructure but openness of the
> process.

I know you're not.

Nonetheless neither you nor I have a monopoly on defining open. People 
on this list have, in the past, regretted that OSM is viewable on 
non-free browsers, and that the source code for routing software using 
OSM data does not have to be released (in an AGPL style). There are 
people who feel that OSM absolutely should not have a Flash-based editor 
on the Edit tab. I don't agree with them, but that's not to say they're 
wrong and I'm right.

So I don't want OSM to get into arguments about "opener than thou" - 
gold stars or silver stars or the purple raspberry of Bad Closed Source 
No Donut. You have one definition; I have another; so does everyone on 
this list. We won't agree. If we start imposing additional demands over 
and above "open geodata", then we shall talk ourselves to death as 
Google buries us with our own confusion.

cheers
Richard