> On Oct 14, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
Sorry “add a guideline or we won’t do anything”.[1]
It’s the threat he’s probably reacting to. It would just be more efficient all
around to build the community since whether you get your data in OSM by force
or by happy local community editors you still need a community at the other end
to maintain it, right?
Best
Steve
[1] -
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2015-October/008288.html
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
