I've got an email into them about the CC0. I don't think it's going to
be a problem - this is just foreign territory for a lot of these guys.
I've got two sides to deal with (and I'm not sure how many of you are in
this situation) - a lot of these guys will happily say "here's my data
take it" but when you go back and say "Welllllll - could you release
this data under this license" that's when the worry amps up on their
end. Being on the consultant end of life (GIS) I have to make sure I
don't misstep. It's why I've been asking a lot about licensing...it's
why Carol has been worried about community.
For instance - Carol taught a class in QGIS. One of the guys taking the
class is a small county and the subject of OSM came up (since you have
the ability to download and use OSM data in QGIS) and he is in the
middle of donating and editing a lot of the data in waze (i.e. google or
soon to be) - I asked about donating some of his data to OSM and his
explanation is "it's too hard to understand and it seems like it's way
to difficult". He's a smart guy and has done a lot with his GIS program
so I need to be careful and make sure I lay out a very clear explanation
of what needs to happen and how it happens. Believe it or not - OSM in
general is exceptionally cryptic - much less importing/licensing/data
that is acceptable etc. Some counties get angsty sharing data with each
other - more so if the whole world is involved.
I appreciate the feedback though.....Once I finish this invoice I'll
toss the union county data up there.
Randy
-----------------
Randal Hale, GISP
North River Geographic Systems, Inc
http://www.northrivergeographic.com
423.653.3611 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
twitter:rjhale
http://about.me/rjhale
On 12/02/2013 08:57 PM, Jason Remillard wrote:
Hello Randal, Ian,
I agree 100% with Serge's last email. Ask them write a public domain
dedication email, something like. "we dedicate any and all copyright
interest in this data to the public domain", or (even better) have
them use the CC0.
Thanks
Jason.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Randal Hale
<[email protected]> wrote:
Awesome - if I was handier with the google there's been a long running
argument on whether a GIS consists of the data or the software. Well -
actually - this is an old article ->
http://www.directionsmag.com/articles/sierra-club-vs-orange-county-pra-lawsuit-update-december-10-2011/219926
So - could they GPL the data and get away with that - is GPL compatible with
ODBL? I assume MIT is.....
Randy
-----------------
Randal Hale, GISP
North River Geographic Systems, Inc
http://www.northrivergeographic.com
423.653.3611 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
twitter:rjhale
http://about.me/rjhale
On 12/02/2013 08:19 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Randal Hale
<[email protected]> wrote:
Actually - I saw you were using MIT - wouldn't that just cover software?
The MIT license mentions software and documentation, so technically you're
right, but if you replace "software and documentation" with "data and
documentation", then it works fine. Or you could take "software and
documentation" to mean include the data in question.
_______________________________________________
Imports-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
_______________________________________________
Imports-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
