Am 16.12.2013 00:27, schrieb [email protected]: > > > I did not see this linked on this list, so here you go: > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/googles-plan-for-global- > > domination-dont-ask-why-ask-where.html?_r=0 > > page 6 of 8, second paragraph > "The O.S.M. map data is free now - > but using it comes with a catch. Any > improvement, or any change at all, > that a developer makes to O.S.M.'s > map must be sent back to O.S.M." > > > Is this an accurate description of OSM's licensing? > Well no (assuming the author is actually referring to OSM data and not the map tiles) .
The ODbL does have fairly strong share alike provisions and likely there are some business models that wont work well with OSM. However even if all the share alike provisions are activated (you've created a derivative database and have publicly used it), you simply have to make your derivative database available (with ODbL 1.0 licensing). You definitely don't have to send us a copy, frankly we wouldn't know what to do with such data if we got it :-). Non-public/internal use does not trigger share alike in the first place. Simon
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
