[OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

Kevin Peat kevin at kevinpeat.com
Fri Apr 8 12:30:19 BST 2011


On 8 April 2011 11:38, Nick Hocking <nick.hocking at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ed,
>
> "transfer rights to the OSMF"
>
> I believe that this is the (only) critical issue. To be open contributions
> need to be given freely and without restriction, so as to avoid the current
> situation where some contributors (with varying agendas) seem to be holding
> OSM to ransom by threatening not to relicence their contributions.
>
> The contributors aren't doing anything it is the OSMF that is holding the
data to ransom.


> This need to be finalised sooner rather than later so that OSM mapping can
> recommence.
>
The current license has worked well for many years with significant
transgressors (Google, Waze et al) respecting it. I would prefer OSM worked
with Creative Commons on 4.0 rather than deleting contributions.



> As to which licence we run under, it doesn't matter to me at all, since I
> believe it should be public domain anyway.  I'll leave that for others to
> bicker about but full rights to the data by the project is essential, in my
> opinion.
>
>
>
I read recently (not sure if true) that Libreoffice in their "fork" from
Openoffice had abandoned CT's and seen a big increase in contributors. I
wonder if introducing CT's will have the opposite impact on OSM.

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20110408/4aea340b/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list