[Osmf-talk] Contributor Agreement is Dual Licensing
frederik at remote.org
Tue Dec 15 10:36:29 GMT 2009
Gervase Markham wrote:
> But surely that means that everyone who wants to use the combined data
> has to do all the merging, rather than it being done once, correctly?
No; if anyone fancies to play melting pot to the world's geo databases,
he can do that (with all PD sources and mix ODbL-licensed OSM in and
make the result ODbL). That guy can then stand up and claim to have it
done "once, correctly" and allow others to use his melting pot under ODbL.
>>> The position seems to have changed from "if we go to ODbL rather than
>>> PD, we preserve share-alike" to "actually, we don't, but share-alike's
>>> not important anyway. Go get all the data again! It won't take long."
>> I thought you were talking about problems when re-incorporating
>> downstream additions into OSM. What has that got to do with having to
>> get data *again*?
> "Again" as in "these other people have gone and gathered it, but now you
> have to go and gather it as well (again; a second time) in order for it
> to be included".
I see. But I think there is a strong motivation for a downstream user to
put his data directly into OSM instead of continuously merging it with
updated OSM data sets, because that will make things easier for them.
> How do I best tag things using the possible tags available to me, when
> there are two or more options (footway=bridleway, access=horse,
> whatever)? That's creative.
As creative as the decision whether you pass the pothole on the left or
on the right.
> Unless you want to argue that there should
> only be a single defined way to tag anything - and I'm pretty sure
> that's a position you don't hold ;-)
For me, that is as if you were claiming that it is a creative act of
yours when you decide how many spaces you put before the opening <node>
tag, or whether you write 49.0014 or 4.90014E+1 - different ways of
expressing the same facts. Some of these ways may be better and some
worse but that doesn't make them creative in my opinion.
More information about the osmf-talk