Hello, to make it very short, if you want to talk about free, please refer to a definition. Freedom in the open source world is very subjective. It is an old debate with old arguments over whether whose licence is freer: BSD or GPL. If you follow that line of argument, you will see that OSM is free following the definition of FSF foundation. I have no desire to go over that debate that is known and is debated quite frequently. Whether OSM switches to a new licence or not, it doesn't change the fact that ultimately OSM data will remain under a share alike licence which you already qualified as less "free". I once again apologize that background noise and this will be my last reply to this thread :)
Emilie Laffray On 2 February 2011 11:30, Sam Vekemans <[email protected]> wrote: > ... but their is a conflict, as OpenStreetMap is not as 'free' as some > people in the OSGeo community has indicated. (from my presentation to > the osgeo-bc chapter last summer). > > > But I agree, I can take a more professional approach, and write a > Paper about this. > > > It will be interesting to hear the results of if OSGeo-BC have changed > their opinion, and perhaps this opinion is not reflected in Atlantic > Canada? > > > .... or perhaps there is no interest in discussing it, as people will > still misunderstand what 'free' means, even after April 1st. > > > I guess only time will tell. > > > Cheers, > Sam > > On 2/2/11, Emilie Laffray <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > just a quick comment following your observation. > > I would like to point out the relation between osm and osgeo are > orthogonal > > considering they have two different mandates: osgeo is working on open > > source geography tools, many of which I use almost everyday, osm is a > free > > data source. The members between the two groups largely overlap and there > is > > absolutely no conflict. Many people from osgeo are doing some work in osm > > and vice versa. > > > > OpenStreetMap Canada will never become osgeo-Canada because they don't > have > > the same goals in the first place. I would also like to point out that > > several local osm groups are a sub section of local osgeo groups like > what > > is happening in France and Germany. There is no licensing problem > whatsoever > > or conflicts. I am part of osgeo-fr. In addition, tools like Mapnik are > > moving towards OGC standards allowing to use WMS. In addition, the OSM > wiki > > website is full of examples on how to use many people produced by the > osgeo > > community like mapserver, openlayers, GDAL/OGR2OGR, Postgis, etc..... > > > > You can of course talk about different source of data on osgeo mailing > > lists. But you would however find very difficult to go and praise latest > > incarnation of Arcgis from ESRI on and on on the osgeo mailing list: that > > would be considered trolling. Similarly, raving on CommonMap on osm > mailing > > lists is not considered polite at best. You are more than welcome to talk > > about it but making it the single point of all discussion is not > considered > > polite. > > > > In addition, many people including me are talking to Brendan Morley > > regularly and we have no qualms about CommonMap. It is a different > solution > > answering to a different need. However, it is not free of licensing > issues > > itself, and so far it is possible for them to contribute back two ways > with > > Australian government as it is using the same licence (CC-BY, a ported > > version for Australia), which may or may not prevent similar interaction > in > > in Canada, or the US for example due to licensing issues. Apart from > that, > > it is wonderful project which I hope will succeed. > > > > Anyway, this was a quick answer to your email. There is no point in > > continuing to hijack this thread in public and I am more than happy to > > continue to reply in private as I don't want to look like I am raving. > > > > Emilie Laffray > > OSMF Treasurer > > > > On 1 February 2011 14:16, Sam Vekemans <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> FYI, > >> Just an observation. > >> > >> > >> On the talk-ca mailing list, where i have attended and creating osm - > >> 'mapping parties', i have noticed where the difference is from an > >> osgeo 'informal meeting' > >> > >> > >> The OSGeo Community (all things geo-related) is a much more > >> professional group. The group members tend to be professional gis > >> people (in their day jobs). > >> > >> > >> Where-as, for OSM, there is a tendency (or at least in the begining) > >> for it to be 'weekend hobbiests, and geocaching, and maaping > >> inthusiasts' > >> > >> > >> So there is a contrast, which is known, but perhaps not apparent, > >> especially when writing notes to each mailing list. > >> > >> > >> Just an observation. If OpenStreetMap Canada wants to become > >> osgeo-canada .... this is where the data licence conflicts. > >> > >> > >> I can freely talk about 'commonmap and open map features, and > >> alternate api's at a osgeo-canada meetup, but that discussion is > >> 'shunned' on the osm-ca mailing list and meetups. > >> > >> > >> > >> Just an observation, > >> > > > > > -- > Twitter: @Acrosscanada > Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ > http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans > Skype: samvekemans > IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room) > @Acrosscanadatrails >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
