On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, john whelan wrote:
> This brings me to the conclusion after all these discussions something
similar to what SteveA-2009 mentioned.
Instead of having OSM conform to these licenses, would be be able to get the
governing bodies to conform to OSM?
In many cases, I'm working with my colleges in the GIS community to borrow
data, if we could give them a
"guideline to a OSM request" document or something we might be able to leverage
a ton of data we wouldn't already
have. I think this is one of the main motivators behind building 2020. That a
lot of this data is accessable-ish,
opening it would only help add better data to OSM. (keeping in mind quality,
applicability ect)
It's better if you get them to use the Treasury Board Open Data licence. TB
has a kit for municipalities and I
understand the licence is included. The advantage is other organisations can
use the open data. If you use
something OSM specific then someone lese might run into the same problem.
Whenever I've spoken[1] to government representative about choosing an OSM
compatible license I tell them to choose between PDDL and CC0. Use one
of these two licenses as written, don't make any changes to them. These are
the two licenses listed as fully compatible with both the CT and ODBL
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
I regard that as the guideline. Any other licenses including custom
licenses make things more difficult.
[1] - Everytime I've provided input into a licensing consultation in
Canada the end result is that data is released under some other license. Not
once has someone explained to me why either of those licenses aren't
acceptable.
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
