On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > > Franics writes: >> >> What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF >> to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are >> "compatible" with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of >> those. > > This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested. > The current wording in the CTs 1.2 simply throws us back to the pre-CT 1.0 > state (depending on the mapper to make a decision on licensing issues). The > LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to > actually do anything about it. > > See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 "4. Data Imports" >
"Importer" in that context sits better than "mapper". The person who imports data needs to make a decision on licensing terms, this has always been the case. The import guidelines strongly advise: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines Imports like "BP service stations Australia" are a problem, because the importer did not state the license and the LWG on contacting the supplier of the data says that the data is only for personal use. (I am still following up this case.) This is a problem under CC-BY-SA or ANY future license. Your remark of "LWG... doesn't want to actually do anything about it." doesn't ring true to the text or the subsequent work LWG has been doing. Kind regards Grant LWG member. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
