> If you look at the software stack on a modern computer, you see the
> kernel, above it libraries and then the application programs. The most
> popular free kernel is the Linux kernel which is under the GPL, but
> libraries and applications used on top of a Linux kernel don't fall
> under the GPL restrictions. (They may be GPL licensed but they are not
> GPL licensed *because* they run on a GPL kernel.) Some licenses are
> LGPL, allowing non-GPL software to use them. So there is ample precedent
> that it is good for basic components not to dictate the licensing of
> stuff that is built on top of them.
Note that LGPL is also a form of share-alike. I'd guess that it is
actually this kind of share-alike that the OSM would want to aim for:
you can use the data and mix it with proprietary products, but you can't
modify the data without sharing those modifications.
E.g. I'd be happy to see things like Google use OSM data and mix it with
any other source of data they can get their hands on, but only if
improvements they make to the data (or they get from their customers)
get fed back to OSM.
Otherwise, the Google data will improve when the OSM won't and sooner or
later the OSM data will be irrelevant. The key here being that the OSM
data is valuabel not because it belongs to the OSM but because anybody
else can use it, whereas Google's own data can only be used by Google.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
