To be fair, the question was intended to be rhetorical. I’m certainly in no position to be making agreements on behalf of Metro. My point is that it’s absurd to expect of others that they not conform to the same license you demand they to conform to. If Metro is willing to adopt the ODBL, explicitly to be able to do two-way sharing with OSM, then the license is working exactly as intended. (I say this as someone who generally thinks share-alike is counter-productive.)
That being said, I’ve been saying for years that there should exist a mechanism for having exactly these kinds of limited-scope exceptions as a middle-ground between the pro/anti-ODBL camps. I even brought it up during the licensing BOF at the last SotM.us, but no one seemed particularly interested in the idea then. Glad to hear somebody else in a better position is thinking along the same lines. Anyway, this isn’t really the right forum this discussion and it’s quickly diverging far from the matter at hand, which based on Paul’s e-mail, I consider resolved. d. On Dec 2, 2014, at 11:00, Alex Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Darrell Fuhriman <[email protected]> wrote: > would OSM return the favor and offer Metro permission to use OSM data in the > same fashion inside the Metro area? > > The outgoing LWG chairman Mike Collinson has stated at State of the Map EU in > Karlsruhe earlier this year that such an exception is in principle possible. > I think that'd be interesting to pursue. >
_______________________________________________ Imports-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports-us
