<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small"><span style="color:rgb(11,83,148)">>
Whenever I've spoken[1] to government representative about choosing an
OSM compatible license I tell them to choose between PDDL and CC0. Use
one of these two licenses as written, don't make any changes to them.
These are the two licenses listed as fully compatible with both the CT
and ODBL<br>
<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org<wbr>/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibilit<wbr>y</a><br>
<br>
I regard that as the guideline. Any other licenses including custom licenses make things more difficult.<br>
<br>
[1] - Everytime I've provided input into a licensing consultation in
Canada the end result is that data is released under some other license.
Not once has someone explained to me why either of those licenses
aren't acceptable.
</span><br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">I assume you're not Canadian. Open Data is handled by Treasury Board which is part of the Federal government. All data released through their Open Data portal is under their licence which has been approved by the LWG. They spent some three or four years consulting with many players including the provincial and municipal governments and the licence they came up with is one they feel comfortable with. It's not perfect but it is a good balance.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">Asking municipal and provincial governments to adopt a different licence means they need to do due diligence which means bringing in the lawyers to explain the implications. It's cheaper and a lot faster to get the TB licence approved than to start looking at other licenses. Not all MPs or councillors are in favour of Open Data, by making it sound as if its a minor thing to pass through on a vote it slides through. Any questions fob them off with TB.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">I understand there are parts of the world that don't have a lot of faith in government and civil servants but in Canada it usually works quite well.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small">Cheerio John<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 3 March 2018 at 10:57, Steve Singer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve@ssinger.info" target="_blank">steve@ssinger.info</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, john whelan wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
> This brings me to the conclusion after all these discussions something similar to what SteveA-2009 mentioned.<br>
Instead of having OSM conform to these licenses, would be be able to get the governing bodies to conform to OSM?<br>
In many cases, I'm working with my colleges in the GIS community to borrow data, if we could give them a<br>
"guideline to a OSM request" document or something we might be able to leverage a ton of data we wouldn't already<br>
have. I think this is one of the main motivators behind building 2020. That a lot of this data is accessable-ish,<br>
opening it would only help add better data to OSM. (keeping in mind quality, applicability ect)<br>
<br>
It's better if you get them to use the Treasury Board Open Data licence. TB has a kit for municipalities and I<br>
understand the licence is included. The advantage is other organisations can use the open data. If you use<br>
something OSM specific then someone lese might run into the same problem.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
Whenever I've spoken[1] to government representative about choosing an OSM compatible license I tell them to choose between PDDL and CC0. Use one of these two licenses as written, don't make any changes to them. These are the two licenses listed as fully compatible with both the CT and ODBL<br>
<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org<wbr>/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibilit<wbr>y</a><br>
<br>
I regard that as the guideline. Any other licenses including custom licenses make things more difficult.<br>
<br>
[1] - Everytime I've provided input into a licensing consultation in Canada the end result is that data is released under some other license. Not once has someone explained to me why either of those licenses aren't acceptable.<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>