Hi,
David Murn wrote:
If we cant even convince a mapping group like NearMap of that licence
certainty, what chance do we have of convincing governments?
As I said, we *have* successfully convinced governments - or at least
regional authorities - here in Germany to act as I've written. As I
said, they are not "licensing their data under an unknown license"; they
have satisfied themselves that they want to support the aims of OSM and
that's it. Of course there's a certain amount if insecurity involved but
governments have to deal with such insecurity all the time.
Out of interest, has anyone asked these donators what they feel about
the licence their data is under, being changed? Maybe they simply did
some research at the time, found out what licence OSM is under, and
agreed
No, at least in the recent past people have been advised that there is a
planned license change (we don't usually go into detail unless of course
someone requests it - we just say that OSM is committed to free and open
licenses always). Most of them really don't care unless you present the
thing as if it were a big deal that could cost them the next election
(or their pension).
This method
may work well for data sources that are public anyway, but if the data
supplier is licencing their data to other places, they need to ensure
they dont lose their licenced customers who might choose to use OSM data
instead of licencing from them.
We don't do pure imports very often; we're more likely to ask for the
rights to do tracing from their imagery. Since in these cases we create
something that wasn't there before, we're not competing against a
product they might be selling.
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
