[OSM-legal-talk] Starting Repository For Public Domain OSM Data
kari.pihkala at gmail.com
Thu Oct 16 20:08:36 BST 2008
I created a wiki page for the public domain map, have a look at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Public_Domain_Map . There is also a
link from the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License to
the new page.
I listed all public domain licenses - we need to decide which one to use.
How to make decisions? Voting?
Also, there is a todo list. I'm not sure if it lists all the required
actions, please correct it if it is wrong.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>wrote:
> >What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make
> >to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be
> >confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all
> >I think most of the decisions will be the same for both (e.g.
> >deciding about tags, road types, changes in software...)
> To be clear, the OSMF is there to support the project and it is the OSM
> contributors (and the OSMF members) who should guide the direction that the
> project goes in. If the community says 'pd' then this is the way I am sure
> the foundation would support it going. In the absence of a strong vote for
> pd their attitude is to sort out the share-alike licence.
> Btw, I don't really see how the project would work if one contributor in an
> area was doing PD and the other was not. There would need to be dual work
> produce a good pd version of the area which would be weird and hard to
> explain to say the least.
> Anyway, I do think it would be useful to set up a pd-talk list to capture
> all this and to ensure that it doesn't overwhelm the legal-talk list which
> suggest should be more focused on current legal concerns. If there is not a
> pd-project wiki page then I suggest you set one of those up and link to it
> from the ODBL page.
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk