On 01/07/11 10:51, Jonathan Harley wrote: > > I think anyone who thought ODbL satisfies this case would be being > naive. It's so easy to dodge really giving anything back in many > different ways, including (off the top of my head): combining OSM with > "additional contents" in the form of already rendered map data, with > poor accuracy and no metadata, which would make it virtually impossible > for things like a road network to be extracted; and/or publishing the > derived database under a license that's compatible with ODbL but > incompatible with the CTs.
OSM is not the presumed beneficiary of this kind of thing. The downstream users of the easy dodges are. > I can't see any point. At least you don't have to publish your > database/method unless someone requests it. But we have to assume that > sooner or later, some busy-body is going to go around doing exactly that. That sounds like a *very* good idea. ;-) - Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
