On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:45 PM, 80n wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) > <[email protected]> wrote: > Graham Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am quite surprised there are many 'personal' contributors who would want > > to refuse to have their data re-licensed - from my personal way of looking > > at it the proposed new licence is so similar to the existing cc-by-sa that > > it will make negligible difference. > > The ODbL license is pretty similar (though some people may have strong > feelings about SA no longer applying to 'produced works'). I would be > hopeful that many large-scale data sources (OS included) could be > persuaded to allow their data to be used under ODbL > > However, the proposed contributor terms change things significantly, > in two ways: > > First you need to give full rights to your contributions to OSMF, who > could then (subject to community approval) re-license them without SA > or By requirements. If you are a strong believer in either of these, > you may not want allow this possibility with your work. Equally if you > are a company with valuable data, it's entirely reasonable that you > will only provide it if there are SA and/or By provisions. > > Secondly, the terms would severely restrict the data sources we could > make use of. In particular they would mean that despite the SA clause > in ODbL, users of OSM data can prevent OSM from re-importing any added > data by simply refusing to sign the contributor terms. > > Once acid test here would be to determine whether CloudMade have already > signed the contributor terms. If they haven't then it is hard not to draw > some conclusions about their intentions with our data.
Yet more dark mutterings from 80n. Where and when could we voluntarily sign up? Oh right... that's exactly the next step for the LWG that you guys are holding up. Steve stevecoast.com _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
