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 legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk