On 1 May 2010 18:56, David Murn <da...@incanberra.com.au> wrote: > 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.
Motivations and morals are 2 completely different topics, even if morals are one form of motivation. Some people just want better maps and they don't care what software or form the data comes in. Others like RichardF would like a BSD/PD style license because they consider it more open than a GPL/CC-by-SA style license, even you don't think a BSD/PD license is suitable because then people wouldn't be forced to give back their changes, so who is more 'moral' or who is more 'open'? > >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. Don't confuse content and code, how many pieces of software have you even seen released under a cc style license? > 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. We're not making excuses, we're sharing out point of view on a topic, and just because it differs you have to resort to emotive language to try and win the argument. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
