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

[Anthony]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

By the way, I should point out that I'm reading a little bit into your
explanation.  I assume you're aware that there are free licenses which don't
allow people to use your work and call it their own, or to claim that a
project is yours when it isn't.  For instance, there's CC-BY-SA.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100103/ee1a61fc/attachment.html>