On 16/05/2014 12:36, Simon Poole wrote:
It is likely that the LWG will be providing a clarification on the
matter at hand soon (Paul has been doing some work on this over the last
couple of weeks).
We are now putting the finishing touches to that and I hope that I'll be
able to release it within the next two days provided that we all accept
it. I will respond further to this thread then.
I will therefore informally comment:
1) Jean-Marc says, "As it stands now, there is nothing that prevents
anyone from contributing ODbL-licensed data into an ODbL-licensed
database." Yep. And we designed the contributor terms with that in mind.
2) There is one small issue to aware of: It is possible to have an ODbL
data with a different contents license. For example a database of freely
shareable photos can have a contents license that says, "but if you want
to use a photo in published media, then a license fee applies".
Unlikely for geodata, but be aware. The default contents license for
ODbL is: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/1.0/
3) As with any other import, it is possible that the data would have to
be removed if our OSM successors decided to change our license. It is my
*personal opinion* that is is up to national or local OSM communities,
as appropriate, to decide that is best for them on the "Import yes or
no?" question. I *personally* don't like to see imports of anything
that is not either public domain-like or has a simple one level
attribution clause. But on the other hand, I see a major reason for a
future OpenStreetMap wanting to drop share-alike is that the entire open
geodata community is dropping it ... so may be a gamble worth taking.
Mike
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
