[OSM-talk] Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Sat Oct 16 04:13:53 BST 2010


On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:02 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 15, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:22:56 -0600
>> SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony is just trolling. He's been kicked out of wikipedia, as noted
>>> multiple times. Ignore him.
>>
>> That is untruthful.
>
> Which bit?

I'm not trolling.  I'm pointing out a fact, which happens to be an
argument against ODbL.  The fact of the matter is that Mapquest is
required to release its tiles under a free license due to CC-BY-SA,
and would not be required to release its tiles under a free license
were OSM under ODbL.

If you want to argue that they would continue to release their tiles
under a free license even after the switch to ODbL, and that it would
in fact be in their best interest to continue to do so, I suppose you
can make that argument.  But then I wonder what the point is of not
requiring it, if it's in the best interest of companies to do it
anyway.  Once again, as with many other aspects of the ODbL switch,
there are two contradictory arguments being used, both in favor of the
ODbL.  On one hand it's being claimed that the weak copyleft of ODbL
provides greater incentives for companies to use OSM, and on the other
hand it's being claimed that companies aren't going to take advantage
of that weak copyleft.

I also haven't been kicked out of Wikipedia, though you have claimed
it multiple times.

Feel free to tell others to ignore me, but take your own advice, and
stop telling lies about me.



More information about the talk mailing list