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

[Andy Allan]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:

> It needs to be one way or the other.
> Personally I think it _should_ be promoting map renderings, but on it's
> main map page it should be one that is truly open in the sense of OSM.

This "sense of OSM" seems to have been redefined recently, to no
longer mean community-based-mapping nor open-licensed-geo-data but
instead something involving the software licences of whatever tool is
used to process the data. Did I miss the memo?

Cheers,
Andy