<div dir="ltr">osm has a viral license?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Sunburned Surveyor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sunburned.surveyor@gmail.com">sunburned.surveyor@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">"Of course, some surveyors may prefer that their work be under a<br>
Copyleft license. That's fine, and I certainly wouldn't want to<br>
discourage anyone from contributing directly to OSM in that case. But<br>
if given a choice some would choose PD, please consider providing them<br>
a workspace where such a choice isn't compromised."<br>
<br>
</div>I'm not that familiar with the licensing issues related to OSM, but I<br>
hope to become more familiar with them. As a result, I am hesitant to<br>
comment on this. It sounds similar to the GPL versus LGPL debate that<br>
goes on in the open source world. I'll subscribe to the OSM license<br>
mailing list and post some more quesitons of mine there.<br>
<br>
Landon<br>
<br>
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Nathan Vander Wilt<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><<a href="mailto:nate-lists@calftrail.com">nate-lists@calftrail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Sep 2, 2008, at 7:47 AM, Sunburned Surveyor wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Nate,<br>
>><br>
>> What data are you talking about? Do you mean the actual vector<br>
>> geometry created as part of the mapping, or do you mean the extra<br>
>> stuff, like the metadata and the photos?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Not sure exactly what you're asking, but I see I was a bit unclear myself<br>
> below.<br>
><br>
> In my first paragraph, I was referring to all the data that is produced via<br>
> federal money (e.g. USGS, NASA, Census Bureau, CIA, NOAA...) and is thus in<br>
> the public domain. There's a lot of great US and world datasets from these<br>
> agencies that have enabled, or at least got started, a lot of neat stuff<br>
> because of the generous (non-)license Federal (and some state???) works are<br>
> under.<br>
><br>
> In my second paragraph, I was referring to the data that you hope to<br>
> encourage Corps members to continue to collect. If they are willing to<br>
> continue having their work placed in the public domain, it might be best to<br>
> keep it totally separate from OSM. If surveyors start with public domain<br>
> base maps such as TIGER, revised with their own GPS traces, there can be no<br>
> questions as to whether they are a "derived work" of a virally licensed<br>
> dataset like OSM. (See<br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-May/025912.html" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-May/025912.html</a> for an<br>
> example of the FUD spread on the idea of extracting PD data back out of<br>
> OSM.)<br>
><br>
> Of course, some surveyors may prefer that their work be under a Copyleft<br>
> license. That's fine, and I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone<br>
> from contributing directly to OSM in that case. But if given a choice some<br>
> would choose PD, please consider providing them a workspace where such a<br>
> choice isn't compromised.<br>
><br>
> Have you been able to get into contact with any now-restless surveyors? lf<br>
> so, and you'd like assistance in the matter, I know there are at least a few<br>
> others on this list of similar mind with regards to the licensing problems.<br>
><br>
> thanks,<br>
> -natevw<br>
><br>
><br>
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Nathan Vander Wilt<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:nate-lists@calftrail.com">nate-lists@calftrail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Aug 19, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Sunburned Surveyor wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Note: This message will probably be of the most interset to OSM<br>
>>>> mappers in the United States.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I was very disappointed in the recent shut down of the National Map<br>
>>>> Corps. This shutdown prompted me to consider if OSM could be a viable<br>
>>>> alternative to the former federally sponsored base mapping of the<br>
>>>> United States. I started to put down some of my thoughts on paper. I<br>
>>>> realized that it wouldn't take a great deal of changes to have OSM<br>
>>>> fill this much needed role. I started to put together some "suggested"<br>
>>>> procedures and other ideas that would increase the quality of OSM data<br>
>>>> and allow it to provide "base map" layers for a traditional GIS. I'll<br>
>>>> be trying out some of these ideas and procedures on a OSM mapping<br>
>>>> project near my home in Stockton, California.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Here in the US, we have the wonderful benefit of a great deal of public<br>
>>> domain map data, because of federal sponsorships like that.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Would it be possible, instead of putting this data directly into OSM, to<br>
>>> set<br>
>>> up a separate database/webserver/API stack for the collection of data<br>
>>> under<br>
>>> a public domain license? OSM could then certainly use this data, but the<br>
>>> main database's "public domain-ness" would not be compromised by the<br>
>>> viral<br>
>>> license.<br>
>>><br>
>>> thanks,<br>
>>> -natevw<br>
>>><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>anselm 415 215 4856 <a href="http://hook.org">http://hook.org</a> <a href="http://makerlab.com">http://makerlab.com</a> <a href="http://meedan.net">http://meedan.net</a><br>
</div>