On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 14:17, Richard Weait <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Chris Browet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > They definitely need to define that, it would help. "an OSI endorsed free > > and open license", maybe... > > OSI don't endorse Open Data Licenses as far as I know. Open Data > Commons do and they even consulted with the OSM community in writing > ODbL. > Ok, that was probably a bad example. The point still is: What is the definition of a "free and open license". As the Nearmap representative pointed out, this far too vague and can lead to anything... BTW, I can see in the Open Data Commons ODbL that at least their license is "terminable (but only under Section 9)", while the OSM equivalent is "perpetual, irrevocable". Nice addition...
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
