[OSM-talk] License/CT issues: Let's not punish the world's disadvantaged, pls.

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

@Eugene

Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples.
My example fits exactly the description of what is called
forking:
Try 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29  
http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork

@Graham,
My reaction was just against the accusation of dividing the community
and create a competitor. Forking is a fundamental right in Open Stuff,
and therefore not te be criticized in the way you do.

The fact is  that FOSM.ORG look more like OSM  then OSM , as the latter
excluded communitymembers that won't accept a majority choice.
OSM voluntarily and willfully took the risk that some of us
might start a fork. 
One of the founding piles under Open Software and Open Data.
OSM has the right to change their license, especially when based
on a majority acceptance (not to be called a vote) but the *changing
party* is the
fork, not the continuing "half". End the fork took the assets .... boooh

Gert


>On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen <g.gremmen at cetest.nl> wrote:
> The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain
name and
> servers, because of .... mainly because a majority let them do it.
>
> So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under
CC-BY_SA,
> in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain
name and community)
> are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community.

Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a
country wanting to change their form of government from presidential
to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the
winning side leaves the territory to the losing side and create a new
country with a new name?