The control seems to be good, but I have no personal say in it. The new license maybe good, but I dont want to accept it if I dont understand it 100%.
With the new distributed system we are building I can : 1. Host my own maps without begging or asking for permissions. 2. Commit my own code to my own repositories 3. Own my own edits without having them deleted by someone for some reason 4. Develop new tools that work with osm that everyone can use and benefit from. The more forks there are, the more possibilities are there for software developers. Kinda like arms dealers. So as long as there is war and conflict, you will need weapons (and maps). As long as there is conflict in the OSM, you will need more software developers, At least my work seems to be more appreciated in the forks. Also I am still working on my new kestrel distributed rendering system, and when that has enough cpus we will be able to do alot more than osm has ever done, because we will have a flexible and reusable decentralized processing system. That is the biggest problem with mindset of the people who are controlling osm, the mindset monolithic and too over controlled. We need to change the mindset to distributed and federated. mike On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 5:56 AM, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > What you say mike is mostly reasonable apart from the control bit. It's a > democratically elected nonprofit, so it's hard to cast that as a > dictatorship. > > Steve > > stevecoast.com > > On Jul 7, 2011, at 20:47, Mike Dupont <jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Chris Barham < <cbar...@pobox.com> > cbar...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and >> this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the >> projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting >> match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted >> over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map. Cries >> of "We're more open" don't help when you >> can't rustle up the hosting fees or development volunteers. So a fork >> must become popular. More popular than other forks or the parent >> project. Was this the real reason for your post with mention of FOSM >> (and no other OSM spin-offs), and seeding "fear uncertainty and doubt" >> regarding *possible* data deletion.. you were recruiting? >> > > > My reasons for helping out are simple, because there are more chances to > develop software if there is a not a monolithic database. There are more > possibilities for OSM if everything is not in the control of a few people. > The only way to be able to negotiate is to be in a position to negotiate, so > being able to fork is an important part in not having to fork. Already we > have developed new and innovative solutions and more. I am also willing to > work with osm as much as possible. > > A fork does not have to be anything bad, and to be honest I see the new > license as a fork, a forced one. what we are doing is just setting up the > tools and resources for people to continue, and these tools and technologies > are needed by everyone and everyone will benefit. > > mike > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
