Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes

2016-02-23 Thread Christoph Hormann
On Tuesday 23 February 2016, Simon Poole wrote: > > - review of the existing OSM community guidelines related to the ODbL > - ODbL review with an eye to a 1.1 release (gather points for > clarification and similar) > - review CC-BY 4.0 compatibility as an input licence to the ODbL > licensed

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes

2016-02-22 Thread Simon Poole
Am 22.02.2016 um 13:01 schrieb Mike N: > On 2/22/2016 4:38 AM, Simone Cortesi wrote: >> Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I >> wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap >> US but some company whose name starts with Map* > > Speaking as

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes

2016-02-22 Thread Simon Poole
There is, naturally, a longish story before this, not really necessary, drama. In August last year Kate hat contact with a law school about potential input from a seminar or similar format on topics in the context of licensing. While there was a fair amount of discussion and some suggestions with

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes

2016-02-22 Thread Mike N
On 2/22/2016 4:38 AM, Simone Cortesi wrote: Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap US but some company whose name starts with Map* Speaking as an OSM US participant and not affiliated with any

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes

2016-02-22 Thread Simone Cortesi
Hi, Looking at previous discussions about "yet another licence change" I wonder if the real client of the exercise really isn't OpenStreetMap US but some company whose name starts with Map* This should be disclosed. The Foundation doesn't need a new licence for our data. 1+ for Mr. Henk. On

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] [Talk-us] license changes

2016-02-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2016-02-21 22:23 GMT+01:00 Henk Hoff : > It is interesting to read that not the OSMF, but OSM-US is the client for > this license exercise. To me, the license is the prerogative of the > Foundation, not a local chapter (either official or presumed to be). > > > > This