On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Grant Slater <openstreet...@firefishy.com> wrote:
> No absolute decision has been made, but seems most practical to remain > CC-by-SA. > > There has been previous discussion on the lists. (ca ~ 1 year ago) I realize this is not legal-talk, but since this discussion is happening here, Grant, can you explain how tiles would not be required to keep the license as a Re-utilization of the work, as per section 1.0: “Re-utilisation” – means any form of making available to the public all or a Substantial part of the Contents by the distribution of copies, by renting, by online or other forms of transmission. Tiles seem to be an extraction and Re-utilization, and are thereby covered by the license and therefore the only way the foundation could re-license them would be to go outside the license and exercise its authority under the terms of the CT. But since no third party can do that... why would OSMF? That is why would OSMF set an example of use that no third party could perform- especially when the sys-admins seem to adamant about people using third party tile servers? - Serge > > Regards > Grant > >> [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stockholm-Openstreetmap.png >> -- >> /emj >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
