Hi, Ulf Möller wrote: > After *three days* of analyzing the licence text, people figure out that > it doesn't actually require ShareAlike for commercial derived maps,
I think we're seeing a slight problem with the wording here that has been overlooked, not a problem of the magnitude you describe, and certainly nothing to do with commercial vs. non-commercial. > and > then it emerges that this was an intentional change requested by the OSM > Foundation. I haven't seen this emerging anywhere. (In fact, the OSM foundation, represented by their board of directors, seems to have been remarkably un-involved as we have heard from 80n who serves on the board.) Assuming you're talking about the issue we raised on odc-discuss, I currently tend to thing it is a cockup rather than a conspiracy. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
