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

[John Smith]

2010/1/3 Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com>:
> 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?

Every second person seems to have a different meaning for "Open"...
This is why non-sense names are often better, after all are we still
just mapping streets? :)