You keep mentioning the OSMF when I think you really mean the LWG.
On 6/17/2011 9:44 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
On 17 June 2011 14:19, Richard Mann<richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
If OSMF were to claim that the CTs "prove" that all its data is
relicensable to anything that's "free and open" then they're daft. In
practice it's relicensable to something that's a bit narrower than
that, and which would almost certainly comply with the spirit of the
OS license, if not the (similarly impractical) letter.
It's grey, it's going to stay grey. If you want white, try elsewhere.
Why does it have to stay grey? If OSMF is happy to allow OS OpenData
to be kept in OSM, then they could simply amend the contributor terms
to explicitly allow it.* Then everything would be clear, and those
who've used OS OpenData could sign the CTs with a clear conscience. If
people have been signing anyway, this won't allow any additional
'tainting' of the OSM database beyond what there already is, but it
would save a lot of discussion time and the risk of losing valuable
contributions and contributors.
Robert.
* In fact I've previously argued that the CTs would be far better if
they were based on a list of explicitly allowable licenses / sources,
rather than requiring individual mappers to make legal decisions on
license compatibility. This would be clearer for everyone, has more
chance of people understanding what they can and can't use, and so has
more chance of keeping 'undesirable' data (whatever that might be)
from getting in to the OSM database. OSMF would then have a much
better idea of where they stood in relation to any future license
change. I've yet to hear an explanation of why this approach wasn't
adopted.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
