Ben Laenen wrote: > Great use of the ellipsis. You may have missed that I actually had > some things to say there.
Yes, I'm sure you did. But what I was trying to say is that (IMO) the really important bit is this: > My hope basically when starting this thread was that these > fundamental issues would have been cleared up by now in > legal-talk or wherever since you now made the schedule available. Seriously - who is this "you"?!!! There is no "you" in OSM. There's a big "us". It's an open source, collaborative project. (I presume you can't mean the OSMF board in this context as I'm not on it and haven't been for going on a year, as I'm sure you checked on the OSMF website.) I expect the OSMF people think they _have_ sorted out the "fundamental issues". Similarly, Potlatch does everything that I would ever need and I never open another mapping program. But, amazingly, some people have a different view and use this strange thing called JOSM. Their definition of the "fundamentals" of mapping aren't the same. That's good. We have thousands of mappers, of course they'll think differently. And this is doubly true of licensing, which is always going to be the single most controversial area in this or any open-source project. So "I want a very detailed answer", in your previous message, is the wrong way to go about things. "In my view, this could be a problem. Could we do _this_ to solve it?" is exactly the right way. Come and join in, it's fun. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-plan-tp22245532p22260658.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
