On 27 July 2012 00:14, Pavel Pisa <ppisa4li...@pikron.com> wrote: > Dear OSMF responsible, > > even recent discussions about ODBl compatibility with Wikipedia > problems shows that there can be problems or complications > with ODBL only licensed data. > > I.e imagine quite realistic scenario. I like to map > marked hiking paths in our area. The guideposts texts > are critical information. They are usually acquired > as photos and they are hold in Wikipedia commons. > We have guideposts in map as well, it would worth > to run script to extract already know guideposts locations, > match them with commons and run update and preparation of > commons pages. But this in ODBl language derivative > of database. But pages and text (i.e. locations) > in commons are CC-BY-SA. Same if amenity water > is imported etc. We would be in the fact forbidden > to use our own data. > > More people would feel much more safe if they know that > they can access their future contributions under CC-BY-SA > as well. Now all data are CC-BY-SA compatible.
I want to +1 this request, though I think I've said this already. The motivation to contribute to a project will be much lower knowing that some consumers won't be able to use the data I contribute. It'll be more like contributing to Google Map Maker. There are existing users of OSM's free geodata who do cool things with this data, and won't be able to continue to use OSM. This could be used to argue for CC-By or public domain but ODbL and CC-By-SA are the only two licenses that OSM can use right now, at no cost. CC-By-SA is also quite popular, and that is important for share-alike licenses. On the other hand I'm not aware of anything anyone *gains* by OSM stopping to publish CC-By-SA planets, considering the attribution issue is handled by the contributor terms. Cheers _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
