On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Harry Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
> Wow. That response was more negative than anything I had expected. > > If you want to continue that discussion, let's take it private. I'm not going to post more about it to the list other than this reply. I posted that response because one of the reasons I'm on *this* mailing list is because I do rely on data made available under a license that actually is permissive, and personally I found statements about the licensing on the website you mentioned inappropriate and misleading. The OSM license is pretty high on my "pet hates" list because I have first hand experience that it through OSM is effectively acting as a barrier to getting GIS data released under more permissive licenses because OSM is the "convenient" target for such releases. To bring this back to something with more relevance to this mailinglist: There's previously been discussions on this list about attempting to expand into generating / collecting vector datasets under a more permissive license. If anyone wants to try to kick that off again, I'd love to be part of that. Regards, Vidar
_______________________________________________ geo-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss
