2009/12/11 paul youlten <paul.youl...@gmail.com>: > Peter, > > That sounds bad. Can you give us some examples? > > PY > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Peter Childs <pchi...@bcs.org> wrote: >> 2009/12/11 paul youlten <paul.youl...@gmail.com>: >>> Dave, >>> >>> Clearly all those things, and much more, can and should be mapped. >>> They can all be seen on the street and they all have public access. I >>> agree: "If it's a physical entity then it can be mapped." ++ >>> >>> What is less clear is what happens if changing the licence means we >>> lose "invisible" administrative boundaries and data from areas where >>> public access is difficult, restricted or non-existent. >>> >>> For example would be nice to include the boundaries of a UK National >>> Park or a site of special scientific interest or (dare I say it) the >>> coastline of Australia - but I don't think it is a "disaster" that >>> threatens the future of the project if these things are removed >>> because of a change in the licence. >>> >>> PY >>> >> >> From having seen it in quite a few Open Source projects, it would be a >> death sentence. >>
Hmm Maybe these have not all died but the split did cause serious damage. X (You now have a choice of X.org and XFree86), The split caused a long halt in development and the original is hardly used now, only the branch.... Joomla/Mambo I'm sure there are others Peter. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
