80n wrote: > There is zero chance that any large organisation would try to use > OSM's CC-BY-SA licensed map data and think that they would > get away with it.
I agree with you here FSVO "large". I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and deliberately using OSM data under the current licence. For them, it's not about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk. No matter if we have CC-favoured "community norms" on top of a PD waiver, ODbL+CT, or CC-BY-SA, for these three companies, being seen to "do the wrong thing" in their key market would be a sufficient disincentive. Plus, of course, TA/NT sure as hell aren't going to use OSM and therefore undermine their sole selling point - "to get good data, you have to pay professionals". So Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq are, in my view, largely irrelevant to the licence discussion. It's everyone else who we have to worry about. In the last couple of months, I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a turnover of >£100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and share-alike. (I've spotted these by chance: I don't go out there looking for this stuff.) Deliberate? In some cases, definitely. You wouldn't put an entirely fictitious credit to another organisation if you were just innocent of the niceties. No, Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq aren't infringing OSM's licence. Everyone else is, though. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6281529.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
