[OSM-talk] Results from license debate - assing (c) to OSMF
nickblack1 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 17 14:34:19 BST 2007
On 7/17/07, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> Tom Chance wrote:
> > I don't support any move towards a less community-centric licensing regime
> > (e.g. public domain)
> No kidding? ;)
> > I don't want OSM to take away non-cartographer's
> > rights to satisfy certain cartographer's business models
The point here, is that OSM's current licensing discourages a lot of
potential users from using the data - user's whose business models are
based on selling paper maps, for example. By enforcing share-alike,
OSM makes it simpler for this category of user to use OS or other
proprietery data, than using OSM data.
> I will charitably assume that this is a misreading of (one of the)
> proposed arguments for more liberal licensing, rather than an intended
> slur. However, it does come across rather like the latter... and it's
> not founded on truth.
> It doesn't actually make an enormous practical difference to my work
> whether or not I can use OSM data to draw maps. I have more than
> enough source data (like, out-of-copyright coverage of the UK and
> 10,000 miles of GPS tracks) for the canal and railway maps I draw. The
> one area where I can use OSM data is in incidental street plans (e.g.
> when we run a "Canal Town" boxout in the magazine), and frankly the
> quality of cartography and size of coverage in such maps would be so
> negligible that it makes no difference to me whether it's share-aliked
> or otherwise.
> So I, at least, am not proposing that there should be a licence change
> simply "to satisfy certain cartographers' business models". I am
> proposing it because I _believe_ it is best for OSM and for the
> encouragement of good cartography. You're not the only one who has
> ideals, you know!
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the talk