[OSM-legal-talk] OSM's future Was: Re: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 1:32 PM, Alex Barth wrote: > "our problems" would of course need more definition and I'm running the risk > here of misinterpreting what you said. I'm thinking about all the cases where > OSM isn't used yet, all the mapping that isn't happing in OSM yet.

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM's future Was: Re: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Steve Coast wrote: > > "our problems" would of course need more definition and I'm running the > risk here of misinterpreting what you said. I'm thinking about all the > cases where OSM isn't used yet, all the mapping that isn't happing in OSM

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSM's future Was: Re: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

> On Oct 12, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Alex Barth wrote: > How is it a bad thing that OSM is used in more places where it can't be used > today and hence grows? It isn’t, as we discussed before. It’s - again - a question of what changes at what cost as discussed. In the past it’s