The topic of licensing is an ongoing one, with some rather heated arguments occurring at LODLAM earlier this year.
I still favour a 'with citation' license myself but due to the multitude of data sources that are available, I'm beginning to think that tag-level licensing might be a necessary feature of OHM. -rhw > On Nov 17, 2017, at 7:00 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:13:43 -0500 > From: Richard Welty <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OHM] Aren't deleted OSM features reviewed for inclusion? > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > On 11/16/17 5:20 PM, David Wisbey wrote: >> So far I haven't been able to make much of this Open Historical Map. >> I am a huge contributor to Openstreetmap and would also like to help >> with OHM. It occurred to me that it would make very good sense to use >> deleted features from OSM. > there are intellectual property considerations. i'm not sure we ever came to > a final decision, but OHM is pretty likely to end up with something like a > CC0 license. it would not be appropriate to take ODBL licensed data from > OSM into OHM without explicit permission from the original mapper. > > richard > > -- > [email protected] > Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting > OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux > Java - Web Applications - Search > > > > > ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Historic mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic
