I agree with this proposal, as personally I dont mind what happens to my work, but as with everyone else in the project, I have used a combination of sources.
I have to wonder though, why is this only just being looked at now? Shouldnt this have been implemented a bit more than 8 weeks before the cut-off date? Or is this simply a proposal that the 'powers to be' still have to agree to? I also wonder how this works, using your example, if the user had entered street names and then another user came along and fixed a spelling mistake in one which they had surveyed themselves. When the changeset is relicenced, you have v1 of an object under a non-compatible licence, and v2 is compatible, so what happens to the object? It seems the only way that OSM can continue forwards is to destroy its entire history and only distribute the latest version of every object in the db at the time of changeover, otherwise OSM will be relicencing data which it has no right to relicence. David On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 16:37 -0500, Richard Weait wrote: > There have been previous discussions regarding "per changeset relicensing". > > I'd like to know if developing the tools to allow per changeset > relicensing is worthwhile. There will be some effort involved in the > coding, so it would be good to know in advance if this option will be > used by many or few mappers. > > The intent of per changeset relicensing is to permit those with a > general agreement to the terms and license, but with a specific > concern about a source for a particular changeset to relicense their > data, but not relicense that data about which they are concerned. > > Example: > > Prof. Mapper maps by GPS and survey as she travels. She also helped a > friend map in Erehwon, and added street names from Erehwon Council > data. Erehwon council have given permission for derivation to OSM > under CC-By-SA, but discussion is continuing re: CT/ODbL, Prof. Mapper > agrees with CT/ODbL but recognizes that She doesn't have permission > yet to relicense the Erehwon street names. > > Prof. Mapper could accept CT/ODbL for the bulk of her mapping, and > mark the seven Erehwon changesets a with a checkbox for Do Not > Relicense and with a note, "Pending Erehwon Council permission". > > This allows several options in the future. It points out datasets and > mappers with interest in discussing relicensing with a specific data > provider. Should Erehwon Council agree to ODbL prior to any change > over date, the data can be included. If not, Prof. Mapper may continue > with their unencumbered data. > > > > http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WFVK6XS > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
