On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Joseph Gentle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> <lots of sensible and interesting discussion> >> Frederik > > > I agree with all of this. I don't want to confuse the issues; but I do > want more data about the opinions of average mappers than an argument > on the internet can provide. > > I am unfortunately frustrated with the foundation. To be able to say > that OSM will never go PD, there must be data. > > If a poll were given to the community, I think it should look like this: > > > Some people have different ideas of what 'free' should mean for our maps. > > Do you prefer that we: > (o) Place no restrictions on the use of the map data [link to PD stuff] > (o) Force anyone using maps based on OpenStreetMaps to share their > improvements back to the community [link to SA stuff] (o) I really don't care that much. I'm just here to make maps! > > [x] I believe so strongly about this that I would contribute less to > the project based on what model of freedom it supports > > Further discussion of the pros and cons of each of these models can be > found here [link]. > > > I don't want to confuse this with the cc-by-sa -> odbl license change. > But, its hard for any of us to make decisions on the community's > behalf without finding out what the community thinks. I agree > completely with Liz - I think most people don't care what the license > is; just that we pick one. Steve - it is for that reason that I don't > want to duplicate effort maintaining two maps. Much better to have it > all under one united roof. > > -J >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk