2009/3/1 Andy Allan <gravityst...@gmail.com>: > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > >> I'm surprised that nobody else seems to see a problem in this. Am I >> perhaps barking up some completely imaginary tree? > > Nope, not at all, I'm exceptionally concerned about the implications > on the cyclemap db. I'm combining PD SRTM data and OSM data, and as > far as I'm concerned making both original sources available should be > sufficient. That way every piece of geographic data used in the > cyclemap is available. Being forced to offer a postgis dump would suck > massively. > > And never mind for me - I've got the time and energy to deal with it > if needs be. But it'll also suck for people doing things like my > public transport experiments - as soon as you put up a picture of one > of your experiments all of a sudden you'll have some guy demanding a > dump of your postgis db. Seems overkill, and like you say, the > intention should be to make the geographic data available, not the > specific instance of (perhaps processed) data.
Yes, for instance this page would just not exist under that interpretation: http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~random/progress/?region=northamerica There's no way I'd have bothered... and dev doesn't have a big enough hard disk anyway :-) Dave _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
