So, Metro just went through a lot of work to change their license to the only thing they thought was guaranteed to work with OSM, can we please get some specific suggestions we can give them for what to use instead?
Thanks, Mele On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 10:24 PM Alex Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > 1. The main thing that gives me some pause is the data being available >> > under the ODbL. >> >> While the irony of this is not lost on me, I’m not sure that it’s our >> responsibility to worry about theoretical changes. If, at a future date, >> OSMF decides to make OSM incompatible with itself, that’s their problem. >> We’re working in the world that actually exists, and the license is >> compatible with OSM. Plus Metro is explicit about wanting their data in >> OSM, and has a long history of improving OSM, and thus is likely to >> accommodate future changes. > > > Agreed w/ Serge's point. We shouldn't import any share alike data as this > makes OSM beholden to a licensing concept that doesn't work for data. IMO > this is not compatible with the contributor terms reserving the right to > change OSM's license to another open license that may or may not be share > alike. Especially if Metro is happy with data being used in OSM it'll be > great to get it in a non-share alike license. One head ache less when we'll > change the license ;) > _______________________________________________ > 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
