On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dale Puch <[email protected]> wrote: > And those are the basic assumptions I made as well. The problem is neither > of us are lawyers and know what legal risks are involved with those > assumption other than "stay away from anything not CLEARLY labeled PD"
[ ... ] > Thus the US OSM determining the legalities for OSM as a group in the US > seems like a good idea. At the very least having a layer draw up some rules > and guidelines for us to follow would be a huge benefit to making more data > available for use. I think that your basic premise makes sense; it is helpful for OSM-US (and or OSMF, LWG, etc) to have a list of vetted licenses, databases and specific sources which are suitable. Counter-examples of databases that are not compatible would also be helpful. But what level of authority should be attached to these guidelines? Should it be forbidden for mappers to include any data not on the 'good' list? Are these lists suggestions, guidelines, or mapper-law? How does this play with the mappers who are already accustomed to finding interesting data sets, deciding for themselves if the license is okay, and uploading data without discussion or permission? Will these self-starters be able to continue? Should they? And finally, if the community does want OSM-US to do this, maintain a vetted list of licenses, databases and sources, should it be on a best-guess basis or will OSM-US need to hire a lawyer? _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
