[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

[Michael Barabanov]

_my_ first and second paragraphs? there was only one from me.

Maybe what I wrote was too concise. My point is that currently one needs to
import; otherwise it's not routable.  Combining at rendering time doesn't
cut it.

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:08 AM, <kevin at cordina.org.uk> wrote:

> So a road-network in OSM based on OS information would have value as it
> would enable OSM's use as a map source for a routing product.
>
> Your first and second paragraphs are therefore inconsistent, unless you
> don't think a routeable map from OSM would be a good thing.
>
> As with any community we all have differing views.  What is important in my
> eyes is that (a) the LWG and OSMF take the overall community's view into
> account and the members disregard any personal view, and (b) that there is a
> very clear (and legally sound) description of the effect of the new licence
> when the time comes to vote so we can make an informed decision which way to
> vote based on the effect it will have.
>
> Kevin
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Barabanov <michael.barabanov at gmail.com>
> Sender: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:18:56
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.<legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Reply-To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
>        <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20101001/0affcafd/attachment.html>