>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 21:29, Andrew Harvey<andrew.harv...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> I have concerns. The FAQ here gives valid reasons to fork an open >> source project: >> >> http://fossfaq.com/questions/52/what-does-it-mean-to-fork-an-open-source-project >> and the multiple forks of OSM may have ignored the advice to only fork >> "When you have exhausted all other options."
What "other option" has been ignored? >> Forks are not a guaranteed success. They may have good reasons, >> ideals and differing opinions, but the parent project has a brand, and >> for OSM it's a powerful one. Very much agreed. Although in this case it's a bit different, because the parent project is actually the one doing the forking. FOSM will be keeping all the data. OSMF will be keeping only a fraction of it. >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 21:29, Andrew Harvey<andrew.harv...@gmail.com> >> Personally I don't care about the licence. I feel that the forks and >> this resulting dilution of effort will become a drain on all the >> projects (united we stand/divided etc etc), and have become a shouting >> match where the 'political' goals of the forked projects are trumpeted >> over the stated reason for the thing being there - an open map. The problem is that the "license" (really more of an EULA) in this case is so bad that a map "licensed" under it isn't even an open map. I agree this is going to be a drain on the projects. But we've tried to stop the change from happening, and have failed. On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > This is exactly right. It's right that the license doesn't matter? _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
