I am unpaid nobody in the context of last two emails on this thread. In my opinion, it sure would be nice for users (not contributors alone) if there was lot more clarity. I imagine, from my point of view, that contributors and other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial users if the license is clear that only data gathered from OSM be shared alike leaving derivative or collective out of share alike if possible.
Thank you for giving me a voice. On Oct 29, 2014 7:34 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2014-10-29 12:32 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse <li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk>: > >> What I read was "MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin > > > doesn't seem to be a nobody in this field though: > "Kevin is the Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy > and a lawyer focusing on the unique legal and policy issues associated with > spatial data and spatial technology. These issues include intellectual > property rights, licensing, liability, privacy and national security. He > writes and speaks extensively on spatial law and technology. He is a member > of the Board of Directors of the Open Geospatial Consortium and is active > in other geospatial associations..." > > so regardless that by asking 2 lawyers about geodata and licenses you'd > typically get 3 different interpretations (so I am told), this bloke at > first glance looks like an expert for this topic... > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > 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
