On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:42 AM, DavidD <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/1/17 John Smith <[email protected]>: > > 2010/1/18 Anthony <[email protected]>: > >> I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant. > >> > >> All contributions are effectively PD anyway. > > > > That still isn't the point, people want to produce PD data that is > > readily accessible to all, not PD data shrink wraped with another > > license. > > OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD > people deal with that?
Well, how will the ODbL people deal with that? If OSM switches to ODbL, all the CC-BY-SA-only data has to go into the trash can anyway. On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > Anthony wrote: > >> How exactly does one get protection as a database owner? It's unclear to >> me how OSMF would get protection as a database owner since they're not the >> ones actually doing anything. >> > > You're right, just like Google doesn't own any of the data the GMM users > upload because Google doesn't do anything. > Yes, I know I'm right. And so does Google. It's why Google doesn't host database dumps or provide an unrestricted API for GMM. That said, Google does a lot more than OSMF. At least Google chooses what types of data to include/exclude.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
