Thanks for jumping in Simon. Saves me digging through heaps of old threads.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 6:53 PM Simon Poole <[email protected]> wrote: > Why doesn't anybody else (outside of OSM) have an issue with the terms > that we are asking to be waived? Because they simply ignore them. > > I have yet to see any data project proprietary, closed or open that > actually conveys this correctly to their users (CC BY 4.0 IMHO actually > rules out using so licensed data in closed projects). Given that the > department in question and the other distributors of data on CC BY terms > must be aware that the relevant terms are as a rule ignored, you would > think that giving a positive answer to an organisation that is so polite to > ask before using the data would just be a formality, but it seems not. > I now remember reading your comments on this in the past, and remember why I also put DNRM in the too hard basket and just went back to mapping with the resources we've got. > It should really be clear from the blog post, but just to clarify: the > interpretation of the CC BY licences that we based our guidance on is CCs > reading of the licence and the result of discussion with CC, not something > that the LWG invented. > I knew there was consultation but thanks for explicitly mentioning they were completely involved during writing it. It is frustrating even something like a CC license needs to be "interpreted" because it can be read multiple ways. -- Jono
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
