At 12:27 PM 14/03/2009, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>Mike Collinson schrieb:
>>Simone,
>>The ODbL is still a "BY-SA" license but written with databases rather than
>>creative works in mind ("ODC-BY-SA"). So my opinion is that Frederik's advice
>>is the right one, it depends on how narrow or wide-ranging the original
>>authority was.
>>At the moment, we are simply trying to methodically establish where issues
>>might exist.
>
>I really like to see that this is done and especially that you let the people
>know that are not on the legal-talk list :-)
>
>There is no need to make formal contact ... a license change has neither been
>decided nor made.
>
>Right.
>
>That's the main reason why I didn't already contacted the Frida data owners
>about the license change. We currently just don't know when and how the
>license will change.
>
>That's also the reason why I'm a bit skeptical about the original proposed
>time table for the license change, especially for the mappers. For some it's
>not a "simple" yes/no decision, but like me they'll have to ask others - and
>that just may take a while ;-)
Yes, we are hearing this one loud and clear. Our original draft timetable was
based on two main factors. One was for OSM to be able to get as much input
into the general ODbL license (which will be available for anyone to use not
just us) before Open Data Commons releases a 1.0 version. That one still
stands, March 20th for end of comments and March 28th for release. But that
does not mean we have to adopt it in any particular timeframe. The other was
concern that OSM is at the point where new user registration is hitting the
stratosphere - approx. 15,000 already this year [1]. So from that perspective,
the sooner the better. Not easy!
Mike
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats#Database_Statistics_-_Graphical
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
