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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:

> Right, while I've got the soapbox out, (and while I'm not feeling as
> ill as I was over the last few days), let me do a bit more explaining
> about OpenCycleMap and its "openness". I make the styles for
> OpenCycleMap. Just me. Dave helps out with the backend stuff that
> makes it all work, but I can point to the cartography and say "I did
> that". And I like the fact that the colours are all mine, and so on,
> and I get enjoyment from it. It's my little project and my little
> claim to fame. I'm happy to listen to people who have suggestions for
> changes, but I don't want to disappoint people if they work on a patch
> and I don't want to accept it. And most of all, I don't want someone
> to make something that looks just like opencyclemap but with one or
> two changes and call it their own, or anyone to think that project B
> is mine when it isn't.
>

Right.  You don't want to be open.  That's fine, for what it is.  You don't
have to always be open about everything.  There are legitimate advantages to
being closed, some of which you have pointed out.  But call it what it is.


> (As for the carefully-worded comment made in another thread that
> implied I would change the license of OCM, that's simply FUD. It'll
> stay CC-BY-SA even if OSM changes to ODbL.)
>

Huh?  What do you mean by "the license of OCM"?  You mean the license of the
tiles?

If you think the comment was carefully worded, maybe you were just
misreading it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100103/cb343719/attachment.html>