I think both Steve and I would suggest you stay with the project. There are some issues and concerns for imported data, however on the public domain side a number of users have stated that their contributions are in the public domain. Their contributions are being extracted and used in other projects. You might like to do the same yourself.
On the software side the XML standard that OSM set excels. Several projects have data in the same format which means the software tools can be leveraged which is always nice. For disabled users OSM based maps are now the ones of choice, and for cycling nothing else has the same detail. Cheerio John On 8 September 2011 01:00, Russell Porter <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the clarification Steve and John. > > I'm a software developer, not a lawyer, but hearing this really killed OSM > for me. PD would solve all the license shit we have to put up with - I won't > list the reasons why, we have all heard them before. Too bad some people are > hellbent on making sure corporations don't use OSM data as they please. It > is a detriment to the project, and for most people, they would probably be > happy to see their road being used in google maps, attribution or not. > Better than not seeing the road on any popular map at least. > > I can't say I will be contributing to the project any more if the switch to > ODBL and new CT goes ahead as planned. It is painful enough a transition, we > might as well just take the leap to PD. Too bad, because the opportunities > for software development with OSM are just beginning. > > Legalese is killing us when we should be focusing on making OSM better in > all respects. > > Regards, > Russell > > > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
