I would like to add my voice to this discussion. I strongly believe that within the intended spirit of the OSM license, geocoding as defined in this proposal should _not_ trigger share alike. I also believe that the legal interpretation proposed has merit, but if legal advice suggests another means in which to capture this spirit, I would support that as well.
As a former OSMF Board member and a member of the OSM community for 9 years, I believe my voice should carry weight in this discussion. Other current and former Board members, and prominent members of the OSM community, have also lent their weighty voices to this discussion. That's excellent, this is the purpose of legal-talk, it has been very enlightening on this issue. But what discussion on legal-talk does not provide is a mechanism for ascertaining a representative community opinion on the spirit of the license; nor a legally qualified opinion on interpretation options; nor a governance mechanism for resolving the proposal ultimately one way or another. I'm not aware if any process is defined for making a decision on this use case. (If one does exist, apologies that I missed it, and I'd appreciate anything that could bring clarity.) The OpenStreetMap Foundation, famously, supports but does not control the OpenStreetMap project. In this situation, I believe this would mean devising a governance structure to help answer such questions, and request that the OSMF in one form or another prioritize this issue. I hope that such can take shape soon, so that the topic of geocoding and other topics can be efficiently and finally resolved. Sincerely Mikel
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
