I've already said quite alot over on talk@, so I'll try to keep this
to the point.
I am writing a geotagging application that I hope to sell. When I
first found OSM, I was very excited for what I could use it for but as
I've followed the discussions I've become a lot more concerned. While
Nathan,
I'm 100% with you as regards PD; I also think that it would cause
much less hassle, make OSM a better project and be morally superior
along the way.
However there are many people who think differently, and you may
encounter some of them on legal-talk to which I'm CCing this, with
full
I really would like to see a license as simple as the following:
For data users -
0. Open Street Map collects and creates public domain map data.
1. Attribution of Open Street Map is expected. We make it easy.
2. Contributing back or freely sharing modifications is strongly
encouraged.
I cannot open my tiny company and our potential
customers to the viral effects of a broad application of the Share Alike
intentions under a broad notion of derivative works
Perhaps you could give a concrete example of what you plan to do, and
explain why the share-alike principle is not
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Nathan Vander Wilt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've already said quite alot over on talk@, so I'll try to keep this to the
point.
I am writing a geotagging application that I hope to sell. When I first
found OSM, I was very excited for what I could use it for but
Frederik Ramm wrote:
That's my problem as well. We are not much better than other owners of
geodata. They say:
1. Geodata is very valuable and takes a lot of work to collect and
those who do all the work should be the owners of the data and
dictate under what rules it may be used;
2.
Nathan Vander Wilt wrote:
I am writing a geotagging application that I hope to sell. When I first
found OSM, I was very excited for what I could use it for but as I've
followed the discussions I've become a lot more concerned. While there
are many users who want their work to be fully in
Which particular FUD do you have in mind? ;-)
*Any* licence will carry legal risks. Paying for a proprietary dataset
without talking the licence through with a lawyer would be silly. There
is no reason why a free licence should be any different. Simple
licences are not necessarily easier to
I really would like to see a license as simple as the following:
For data users -
0. Open Street Map collects and creates public domain map data.
1. Attribution of Open Street Map is expected. We make it easy.
2. Contributing back or freely sharing modifications is very strongly
encouraged.
On May 6, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
Which particular FUD do you have in mind? ;-)
Over on the talk list, the notion was spread that even when a user
notes that they dedicate their data to the Public domain, all it
might take to undo the Public Domain-ness of those contributions
10 matches
Mail list logo
