On Sat, 2010-05-01 at 18:34 +1000, John Smith wrote: > On 1 May 2010 18:27, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com > <jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Please don't get to personal here, it is not about my morals. It is > > about consistency and clarity. > > There isn't much I can do about the truth offending you, you did > indeed use emotive language to push an agenda based on your morals.
I would hope that every user of OpenStreetMap has the same 'morals' of wishing open-ness and freedom upon everyone else. Strangely, it also becomes emotive for some points. > > I just find it confusing. Really there is no clarity in this example, > > as to the rights of the user. What is the exact license of the > > software? What is the agreement that you enter into by downloading? I > > would say that it is not clear. > > What does software license ambiguities have to do with the OSM wiki? >From quickly looking at the mentioned page, a quick search for 'license' reveals only one match, the line 'Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license'. This would lead one to believe that the content of the page (and the link to the installer for the app which the page is all about) are available under a free licence. I can see both points of this argument, but while James seems to be asking for consistency within OSM, everyone seems to be making excuses as to why there doesnt have to be consistency. David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
