Hi, On 04/16/2011 05:40 PM, Graham Jones wrote:
I am also surprised that we are going to the compulsory re-licensing when there are still (as far as I can tell without looking too closely) doubts over the compatibility of significant datasources with the new licence or contributor terms - From what I can tell from a few wiki pages, it is not clear whether OS Opendata in the UK, or Nearmap in Austrailia is compatible. I would have expected these issues to be resolved before forcing people to re-licence.
Isn't it funny how, just over a year ago, we couldn't care less about anything the Ordnace Survey did, and suddenly we are a project that must choose their license according to what is compatible with OS?
If these issues have been resolved, and there is a mechanism for deciding what level of data loss is acceptable, then I will happily re-licence my own data, but I am looking for some reassurance before I do so.
I say to you the same I said to Ian - even if OSMF would publish what mechanism they plan to use (and I'm pretty sure they don't have one yet), then that mechanism would not become part of the contract and it could be changed at any later time, say, after majorities in the OSMF board have changed after the next election or something.
I'm sorry but I think you can either trust people to do the right thing or not trust them, but nobody will give you a written statement (or if they do it won't be worth much).
Bye Frederik _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
