> He’s clearly not suggesting that. > > He’s suggesting that if you want to put geocodes in OSM that you go do that, and create a community around it, rather than this method of “change the license or we won’t do anything” which Fred feels is hijacking.
If I misunderstood, I apologize. Frederik's email discussed the burden of maintaining address data, the relative lack of interest in addresses within the OSM community, and the implicit obligation to contribute labor to the data's maintenance; and it didn't mention licensing at all. That's why I read it the way I did. But perhaps it will be best to let him clarify his own words. In that same spirit of clarification: at no point in this thread have I asked for a change to the license. I've been arguing for a clarification of how the existing license applies to geocoding use cases -- an issue parallel but related to the guidance Simon introduced. If I'm not mistaken, the LWG and larger community have acknowledged this to be an open issue for some time. On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 14, 2015, at 8:30 AM, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote: > > > > Frederik. I think it's a bit ungenerous to suggest that getting open > address data into OSM constitutes "hijacking" the project. > > He’s clearly not suggesting that. > > He’s suggesting that if you want to put geocodes in OSM that you go do > that, and create a community around it, rather than this method of “change > the license or we won’t do anything” which Fred feels is hijacking. > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
