On 03.05.2014 17:51, Michael Collinson: wrote > *The OpenStreetMap project collects long-lived geospatial data as a > set of intelligently or machine-made physical observations only. > * [Wording needs improving!] > > And then to say: > > *And share-alike only applies to what we collect.*
Let me first say that this is a brilliantly clear way to put it. I like this a lot. On 05.05.2014 06:38, wrote Rob Myers: > But the license doesn't exist to collect data for OSM. > [...] > If that leads to patients having better access to their medical data, > people being able to find somewhere to park, players of games being able > to maintain and modify them creatively to build communities around them > and drive sales, and people being able to check the actual rankings of > the restaurants they're being directed to that's definitely a win for > Open Data. Our license (and the community guidelines) should be designed such that they allow us to fulfil our mission to the best of our ability. Now it's hard to find a definitive mission statement for OSM because we are such a diverse crowd of people. However, when someone tries to describe what OSM is all about, the description usually focuses on one concept: Making *geographic* data freely available to power a lot of different applications. Being individuals, we all have other goals besides that. We support different political parties and work for different companies. Some people campaign for the protection of the environment, others for government transparency, and again others want to help patients to better access their medical records. But you will struggle to find a description of OSM as a project that tries to liberate medical data, or make it easier to mod computer games. And I believe these goals should not get in the way of making our data widespread and easy to use. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
