On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > You can of course fork whatever you like, but allow me to point out that > > (1) if you are unhappy with the slippy map plugin, why not fork that instead > of the whole editor. > > (2) the slippy map plugin can be configured via the preferences to use > almost any kind of data source, whether legal or not; it is just that the > *default* datasources that are available with one click should not contain > something that causes licensing problems down the line.
Yes. I should have been more specific. On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. The reason given for removing Nearmap from Potlatch 1 was > (paraphrasing): "Users who have agreed to the CTs must not use > Nearmap. Potlatch cannot tell whether a given user has agreed to the > CTs. We do not want to spend time adding that support, because we'd > rather work on Potlatch 2. Therefore we have disabled Nearmap for all > users." > > I think that's a fairly defensible position. Obviously it sucks for > those of us who haven't agreed to the CTs, and want to continue to use > Nearmap (which we're entitled to do). But it's fair enough. > > So the question is: is this the same reasoning for removing Nearmap as > an option from JOSM? Could a better solution be found, like perhaps > flashing an alert to anyone selecting Nearmap, warning them that they > must not use it if they have agreed to the CTs? I wonder if one was to code this and submit a patch to do this which follows the existing style guidelines, would it be accepted into the slippymap plugin? _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
