Joseph wrote: "Option 0: The OSM database has an added 'license' tag and the map can be viewed and edited through a PD filter. A second set of map tiles will need to be rendered. Any data edited in PD mode will (by default) have a PD tag applied. Stuff like TIGER can be thrown directly into the database as PD. We will need a good merging algorithm and way to resolve conflicts.
Option 1: OSM hosts a second PD-only database. Any PD mapping data is first merged into that set before it goes into OSM. A second database would be needed. Merging could happen manually. Option 2: OSM and PD maps are sister projects sharing the same software stack but run on different servers. It would be up to the OSM guys to manually import data from the PD database when the PD database has better data. Option 3: OSM has nothing to do with the PD maps." Nice summary Joseph. I think this would be a good post to start off the discussion on the Yahoo group. Richard wrote: "One thing I really love about OSM is the pragmatic, un-political approach: You don't give us your data, fine, then we create our own and you can shove it. Not: You don't give us your data, fine, then we create a complex legal licensing framework that will ultimately get you bogged down in so many requests by prospective users who would like to use our data and yours but cannot and you will sooner or later have to release your data according to the terms we dictate and then we will have won and the world will be a better place." Nicely put. 80n wrote: "No community grew up around TIGER which existed as a PD dataset for a very long time before OSM started." I would argue that the problem wasn't that the TIGER data was in the public domain. The problem was their wasn't a convenient mechanism to allow for user contributions and input. I can testify from personal experience about software projects released under an open source license that slowly died or were forked because the parent company didn't respond in a practical way to user contributions. In this sense it is the support for a community that matters more than the license. I don't think that we are going to come to an agreement on the PD verus share-alike debate. Obviously there are people that feel pationately about both sides of the issue. The discussion has been very fascinating for someone interested in the licensing of geospatial data and in collaborative or community-based mapping. I'm not asking all of OSM to go PD. I'd just like to know if there could be some way for me to collaborate my "PD mapping" efforts with other OSM users that share the same interest. This shouldn't be a threat to share-alike proponents, should it? They can keep contributing under the current system based on the current (and eventually proposed) share-alike license. Landon On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:35 AM, spaetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:26:20PM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> bvh wrote: >> >> > If garmin closes their devices for non-garmin signed datasets (ala >> > TomTom) then you could very well end up paying for the privilege to use >> > your own data. >> >> Sure, but that's an utterly different issue - that's an issue about >> whether or not Garmin allows third-party maps to be installed on their >> devices. I can't upload OSM to my microwave, either. > > In the same vain I can chose to not buy microwaves that prevent me from > cooking spcific food. If garmin closes their devices to only allow > propriatary stuff buy from a competitor. Heck, little eee PCs are more > flexible and in the same price range as some of those devices. > > spaetz > > _______________________________________________ > 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
