john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> writes: > I have concerns about the amount of effort we seem to be asking open data > set creators to make. I think it took me seven years to get the licensing > correct to be able to import the local bus stops and very early in the > process the head of the transit system said 'but we want you to use our > data.'
Are your concerns about OSM people being asked to be caeful that the licnense is actually ok, just now, or the longstanding policy that we only accept data that OSM can lawfully redistribute? I can certainly see your larger point, but also I think there are people that claim to have "open data" that do not, because they don't permit modification, or require indemnification, or something else that runs afoul of what an "Open Data Institute" would require of a license meeting the "Open Data Definition". Or perhaps the Debian Free Data Definition. In the case of your transit system, what were the key problems, and how were they overcome? I suspect that history is very useful for others. I am fortunate that my MassGIS (my state government) has a policy of PD with attribution requested. (There is some data from my town which doesn't even pretend to be open, and so far I have tried to use it or talk to them about licensing.)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
