I'm trying to understand where you see the line in the sand. I assume you're talking about importing share-alike data specifically and you're referring to the recent discussion started here [1]. While strictly speaking ODbL data can be imported under today's CT's it may not be compatible under tomorrow's so I think it's absolutely fair to warn folks and encourage them to _not_ import ODbL or other share alike data. Maybe you're referring to a different discussion though.
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports-us/2014-December/000641.html On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Serge Wroclawski <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey folks, > > I tried to make this clear in another thread, it seems something must > have happened. > > While license discussions about OSM are important, and we all have our > views and passions about them, I'd really like to avoid them here if > possible. > > The reasons are several fold: > > 1. We have several places to talk about licenses, like the talk lists > and the LWG > > 2. Relicensing OSM is outside the scope of the US, and outside the > scope of imports[1] > > 3. They're really inflammatory > > The caveat for [1] is this discussion about reciprocal licenses. I > actually brought it up in Birmingham. I think it's an interesting > idea, but it's something to discuss at the Foundation level. > > We obviously need to discuss local data licenses, but I'd really like > to avoid a lot of license advocacy if at all possible, just to keep > things from flaming up, which seems to always happen during license > discussions. > > - Serge > > _______________________________________________ > 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
