Hi,
John Smith wrote:
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).
Do they understand that may include no attribution in future?
Convincing someone to give you date is a bit like sales. We're not lying
to people but we're not trying to scare them either. We're not saying
things like: "Do you understand that giving data to us might ruin any
future business model you might think of?", and neither to we ask them
to read through CC-BY-SA, ODbL, CT & OSMF's articles of association
("I'm sorry but I cannot accept your data before you are perfectly clear
about everything...").
Of course if it would be my *intent* to let such a discussion fail
because of the license, scaring them away would be easy, with any
license. Personally I think the share-alike component has the most
potential to scare them ("do you understand that if you re-incorporate
any of the good stuff we add into your databases, you will have to
license all of them under the following license which has been thought
out by a bunch of Americans?").
In Australia, from what I've been told, attribution is a must and
there is no way any government body will accept anything less.
Most people we've spoken to are happy if we can put out a press release
that says "XYZ council helps OpenStreetMap" and if we have a Wiki page
that confirms it. The would get that even with PD.
Of course YMMV and there will always be hard cases who demand a depth of
attribution that even (our fashion of) CC-BY-SA cannot give them. But
that's not too bad because we don't depend on Government data; it's just
a nice add-on.
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
