----- Original Message -----
From: "TimSC" <mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk>
To: <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
On 19/04/11 11:45, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
On 04/19/11 12:32, TimSC wrote:
I still think that the CTs ask
for rights to be granted that are broader than are granted by the
Opendata license. This point is disputed by Richard and others. Here are
the most prolific Opendata users (in terms of version 1 objects) that
have accepted the CTs, along with their user IDs:
Does the explicit naming of these people actually contribute anything to
solving the problem?
Determining the scope of the problem is perhaps the first step to solving
it. And we might want to find out why these users felt the need
In defence of those users, I suspect they did not feel "the need to
(possibly) violate OS OpenData's license", i.e I suspect they did not make
a conscious decision to possibly violate the licence;
I suspect that either:
(a) they were unaware there might be a problem, because when you are asked
to agree to sign the CT's there really is no warning to those who have not
followed the licensing debate that some existing sources of data may not be
compatible with the CT's ;
or (b) they have been persuaded by those on this (and the legal list) who
have argued that OS OpenData is compatible with the CT's .
Ultimately, however, those users motives are not the most relevant issue.
What is more relevant are the as yet unanswered questions:
(i) is OS OpenData compatible with the CT's; and
(ii) what will happen to the contributions of users who have breached the
CT's
David
to (possibly) violate OS Opendata's license. User education might be
something we can work on?
However, does your question go towards solving the problem? Ad hominem tu
quoque!
TimSC
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
