On 15 June 2011 14:41, Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com> wrote: > There have been several attempts to engage with OS, if I remember > correctly, both by LWG and by individual mappers. They've been > resistant.
There would presumably be no need to "engage with OS" if LWG was happy that the OS OpenData License was compatible with the proposed CTs and ODbL+DbCL licenses. So can we take it from this that LWG's position is that under the current license from OS, OS OpenData is not compatible with the CTs and/or and ODbL+DbCL? We really need a straight answer on this now. If LWG does not believe OS OpenData is compatible, then there is going to be a big problem for the UK map,* which will need to be addressed sooner rather than later. If LWG does, and can support its reasoning (or, better still, offer indemnity to mappers who follow its advice), then we could save ourselves a lot of bother here. Myself and others who have used OS OpenData would be able to safely sign the CTs, can continue to map when phase 4 starts, and can have our OS OpenData and other contributions retained going forward. If LWG is not prepared to make such a statement on whether they believe OS OpenData is compatible, how can it justify forcing individual mappers to make essentially the same decision when they have to chose whether or not to sign the CTs? Robert. * Don't be fooled into thinking this is a small problem because of the small number of CT rejections in the UK. A lot of mappers have signed the CTs even though they have made use of OS OpenData in their contributions. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
