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

[Robert Scott]

On Thursday 23 June 2011, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> @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

Funny you should bring this up - I was going to talk about software forks, but thought better of it.

By your definition, Linux gets forked thousands of times a day, so surely must be a project in dire straits.

Yet people somehow still know what "Linux" is and where to get it, because it tends to center itself around where all the competent people are.

> @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

So because people have decided to start a voluntary project, they have to be answerable to absolutely everybody... everywhere... ever? No matter how unreasonable or logically warped they are (no names mentioned)? Everyone gets a veto on everything. Right?


robert.