[Imports] [OSM-talk] FYI: Board now requires imports list (in)compatibility with OSM CT (& will work on a template)

[Greg Troxel]

john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> writes:

> I have concerns about the amount of effort we seem to be asking open data
> set creators to make.  I think it took me seven years to get the licensing
> correct to be able to import the local bus stops and very early in the
> process the head of the transit system said 'but we want you to use our
> data.'

Are your concerns about OSM people being asked to be caeful that the
licnense is actually ok, just now, or the longstanding policy that we
only accept data that OSM can lawfully redistribute?

I can certainly see your larger point, but also I think there are people
that claim to have "open data" that do not, because they don't permit
modification, or require indemnification, or something else that runs
afoul of what an "Open Data Institute" would require of a license
meeting the "Open Data Definition".  Or perhaps the Debian Free Data
Definition.

In the case of your transit system, what were the key problems, and how
were they overcome?  I suspect that history is very useful for others.
I am fortunate that my MassGIS (my state government) has a policy of PD
with attribution requested.  (There is some data from my town which
doesn't even pretend to be open, and so far I have tried to use it or
talk to them about licensing.)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20221129/3d6eb23c/attachment.sig>