On 16 April 2011 17:00, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > 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?
... > 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. > > No-one expects the OSMF/LWG to have all the answers worked out in advance but surely someone can answer questions about what their intentions are. Such as is it the LWG's intention to make the license/ct's compatible with OS Opendata? If it isn't then all those people currently tracing thousands of roads a week in the UK might as well take a break and get some fresh air. After so many years, someone must surely have given at least a bit of thought to how removing incompatible/un-relicensed contributions might be handled? What's wrong with starting a thread with those ideas and letting other people give their input? I am quite prepared to trust people who I feel are being honest about their intentions but the lack of information just gives the impression that something underhand is in the works. I can imagine it would be easy for those people who believe cc-by-sa doesn't apply to map data to justify re-adding any deleted contributions on the basis that most of it is effectively pd. I just think that would be a really bad idea as far as maintaining any kind of community trust goes. Kevin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
