On 14 April 2011 00:49, Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> wrote: > It's _a_ goal but I think the more important selling points for ODbL/DbCL > are the positive ones - more uses it would permit for the data, for example > distributing map tiles without having to follow any particular licence for > them.
Some claim it would need attribution as a minimum, however it may even need a license agreement from end users so the ODBL applies to tiles not just map data. Otherwise data could be reversed back into vector format, with no minimum license, which seems to breach ODBL to me. In any case I'm yet to get a straight answer for that. > In my view the 'negative' selling points - that it would supposedly allow the > OSMF to sue people in all the cases where the map is currently being used > wrongly and we can't do anything - are less central to the project's vision. How many parties have needed to be sued so far because they refuse to comply with CC-by-SA? > In the end, legal reasons aren't the most important ones. I hope that OSM > can be a broad church. The aim is for everyone to feel able to agree to the > CTs, whichever faction they belong to, or none. So it would be good to follow > a broad-based licensing plan that can accommodate everyone. Why do we even need the CTs, supposedly we needed a new license, but all that is going to do is remove large tracks of data, and an increasing distrust in OSM-F both to do things morally and even smoothly at all, at this point I highly doubt they could even successfully organise a piss up in a brewery... _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
