On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:03:37AM +1000, John Smith wrote: > On 20 August 2010 07:57, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > > They can use the data the same as anyone can. My believe in share alike > > long predates CloudMade and OpenStreetMap. > > I think most problems currently with the CT is because there is too > many conflicting goals. > > If OSM/OSM-F's future really is with PD then fine say so, if it should > stay BY-SA then fine say so, but this wishy washiness of trying to > appease PD and SA groups isn't going anywhere.
During early stages “public domain” was rejected. Skimming through the
OSMF board meeting minutes, I can trace this back to January 2008:
“3. OSM Data License - Richard provided an update on the current
situation. Creative Commons, through their Science Commons
initiative have published their "protocol" on open data at
(http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/open-access-data-protocol/).
The protocol places science data in the public domain and there is
no attribution or share alike component. As such it is not therefore
thought that OSM contributors would sign up to this approach should
it be adopted by OSM. It was agreed that further consideration of
the Open Data License would be investigated and Richard tasked with
contacting Jordan Hatcher, one of its authors to further discuss.”
Source:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/images/9/99/20080117_meeting_minutes.pdf
I agree with John that we should choose the route and stick to it. I
thought the above was to be the route, and one which I agreed with, and
the ODbL satisfied that for me. Most of the ambiguity and conflict is
in the Contributor Terms, and has been pointed out (many times, to much
annoyance) already.
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
