On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 01:32:53AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > If NearMap imagery is so important for OSM in Australia - and there > are countries which have been mapped very well without aerial > imagery of note - then let's make an exception for NearMap, let's > include their data without them signing the CT. This would mean that > if at any later time the license is changed, NearMap would have to > be asked specifically if they like that license. I assume that this > is something we will have to do for some other sources as well. > > No reason to drop or modify the CT for everybody because of that.
Not because of NearMap, no way would I just give in to some organisation who feels they can’t fit with our terms. However, I think the concerns are entirely reasonable, and if we say we are going to license our data under the ODbL + DbCL we should stick to it. Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike licenses? Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
