On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Chris Browet <[email protected]> wrote:
> However, I remember reading somewhere that the MapDust License is not very > open. It certainly had some undesirable sections in the Ts&Cs when it first launched, but I think that was an oversight. I can see the section numbers are discontinuous - e.g. 3.2 is missing - so I think it's been updated to remove the worst. So the license covering the bug data seems OK[1], but I'm presuming that the server-side stuff is mainly closed-source. > What's the opinion of the knowledgeable people, here? Should MapDust be > supported by the editors the way OSB is? Well, I wrote the MapDust support for Potlatch2, so take my words with a pinch of salt. Yes, I think editors should be supporting MapDust, along with every other bug system (e.g. OSB). If we can encourage / cajole people to have similar interfaces (or even stop reinventing the wheel) then so much the better, but it wouldn't be an open-source community without a few overlaps and inefficiencies along the way. The bigger question is how to change these systems to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. I've been monitoring the bugs in MapDust for the last few weeks around London - almost all of which are reported by the skobbler navigation app (unsurprisingly) but unfortunately these are absolutely useless 98% of the time. The good reports are quickly buried under an increasing mound of "Enter note..." reports. In contrast, in my experience the majority of OSB-reported bugs are actually useful. I'm not sure what we can do about the skobbler-app issue. Cheers, Andy [1] Cue opening of licensing-based floodgates. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
