@Eugene Please do not extend the discussion with incompatible examples. My example fits exactly the description of what is called forking: Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/RightToFork
@Graham, My reaction was just against the accusation of dividing the community and create a competitor. Forking is a fundamental right in Open Stuff, and therefore not te be criticized in the way you do. The fact is that FOSM.ORG look more like OSM then OSM , as the latter excluded communitymembers that won't accept a majority choice. OSM voluntarily and willfully took the risk that some of us might start a fork. One of the founding piles under Open Software and Open Data. OSM has the right to change their license, especially when based on a majority acceptance (not to be called a vote) but the *changing party* is the fork, not the continuing "half". End the fork took the assets .... boooh Gert >On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen <[email protected]> wrote: > The rotten thing here is that the ODBL fork has hijacked the domain name and > servers, because of .... mainly because a majority let them do it. > > So I feel it very unfair to call the continuation of OSM under CC-BY_SA, > in additon of being obliged to seek new resources (servers ,domain name and community) > are called a competitor with the aim of dividing the community. Uh huh. So I suppose if there were a successful plebiscite in a country wanting to change their form of government from presidential to parliamentary (or vice versa) then that's a rotten thing unless the winning side leaves the territory to the losing side and create a new country with a new name? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
