On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make > sense > >to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be > >confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all > >I think most of the decisions will be the same for both (e.g. > >deciding about tags, road types, changes in software...) > > To be clear, the OSMF is there to support the project and it is the OSM > contributors (and the OSMF members) who should guide the direction that the > project goes in. If the community says 'pd' then this is the way I am sure > the foundation would support it going. In the absence of a strong vote for > pd their attitude is to sort out the share-alike licence. > To be doubly clear the OSMF's articles of association say this, and only this, about its objectives: "OpenStreetMap Foundation is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anybody to use and share." > > Btw, I don't really see how the project would work if one contributor in an > area was doing PD and the other was not. There would need to be dual work > to > produce a good pd version of the area which would be weird and hard to > explain to say the least. > > Anyway, I do think it would be useful to set up a pd-talk list to capture > all this and to ensure that it doesn't overwhelm the legal-talk list which > I > suggest should be more focused on current legal concerns. If there is not a > pd-project wiki page then I suggest you set one of those up and link to it > from the ODBL page. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Peter > > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
