At 04:28 PM 12/05/2010, Tom Hughes wrote:
>On 12/05/10 16:23, Jochen Topf wrote:
>
>>This puts the OSMF in a unique position to undermine the whole project. If
>>somebody subverts the OSMF, he can do whatever he wants with the data. I don't
>>think its a good idea to expose the OSMF to even the possibility of that
>>happening. The whole point of the license is to give *nobody* a way to make
>>the once open data not open anymore. With the IMDB and the CDDB we have two
>>examples where this exact thing went bad. Not somebody coming from the outside
>>taking the data and making it proprietary, but somebody from the inside.
>
>Did you read the next paragraph which constrains what they can do with it?
>
>Yes, it is a bit weird to say "we'll have everything" and then in the next
>paragraph "but we'll only do this with it".
>
>Tom
If I changed that slightly to "we'll have all the bits" ("Content" or each
individual node/way) and "but we'll only do this with the whole thing (the
database) with some room for change in the future within the confines of being
free and open", I hope it makes more sense. I've just replied to Jochen with
why it is as it is.
Mike
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
