On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Chris Barham <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
