Peter, That sounds bad. Can you give us some examples?
PY On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Peter Childs <pchi...@bcs.org> wrote: > 2009/12/11 paul youlten <paul.youl...@gmail.com>: >> Dave, >> >> Clearly all those things, and much more, can and should be mapped. >> They can all be seen on the street and they all have public access. I >> agree: "If it's a physical entity then it can be mapped." ++ >> >> What is less clear is what happens if changing the licence means we >> lose "invisible" administrative boundaries and data from areas where >> public access is difficult, restricted or non-existent. >> >> For example would be nice to include the boundaries of a UK National >> Park or a site of special scientific interest or (dare I say it) the >> coastline of Australia - but I don't think it is a "disaster" that >> threatens the future of the project if these things are removed >> because of a change in the licence. >> >> PY >> > > From having seen it in quite a few Open Source projects, it would be a > death sentence. > > Peter > -- Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
