Steve, SteveC wrote: > Guys OSM isn't going PD...
Who can say? OSM goes where the community wants it to. You were present at SOTM 07; do you remember the show of hands when people were asked what they think about PD? That the Foundation is investigating share-alike licenses and not PD is due to the fact that we currently have a small but outspoken minority in favour of share-alike. I'm all for respecting their wishes but trying to stifle discussion about PD and make these people "go away" is surely going too far. > can't you go start > ReallyFreeAndOpenStreetMap.org or something? Well they were about to, but I'd rather try and keep everything under one lid at this time. There is nothing against dual-licensing some data if people want that - I could well imagine an editor setting that, whenever you upload original data and you have the "PD flag" set, uploads data into two repositories at the same time. I also still think my pet project of having something like a "PD view" of OSM that contains only those bits not touched by a viral license is not that bad. While I do understand that the Foundation has a lot of work with the proposed new license and any PD discussion does not make that easier, I don't think that statements like yours above are helpful in any way. An osm-pd mailing list would be the right answer - let legal-talk be the forum for discussing the current as well as the proposed new license, and any PD plans continue elsewhere *within* OSM. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
