>What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make sense >to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be >confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all >I think most of the decisions will be the same for both (e.g. >deciding about tags, road types, changes in software...)
To be clear, the OSMF is there to support the project and it is the OSM contributors (and the OSMF members) who should guide the direction that the project goes in. If the community says 'pd' then this is the way I am sure the foundation would support it going. In the absence of a strong vote for pd their attitude is to sort out the share-alike licence. Btw, I don't really see how the project would work if one contributor in an area was doing PD and the other was not. There would need to be dual work to produce a good pd version of the area which would be weird and hard to explain to say the least. Anyway, I do think it would be useful to set up a pd-talk list to capture all this and to ensure that it doesn't overwhelm the legal-talk list which I suggest should be more focused on current legal concerns. If there is not a pd-project wiki page then I suggest you set one of those up and link to it from the ODBL page. Thanks, Peter _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
