[OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Ed Avis]

Frederik Ramm <frederik at ...> writes:

>Data that is not fully relicensable, i.e. comes with strings attached, 
>will always be second-class data in OSM because it carries with it the 
>potential to cause problems. At the very least it would have to be 
>flagged as such. Giving everyone the opportunity to add such 
>second-class data at will (and risking that others who would normally 
>contribute first-class data build on second-class data and thus produce 
>something of lesser use to the project) seems a bad choice to me - 
>worse, actually, than doing our best to explain to everybody why we can 
>only accept first-class data, and wave a sad goodbye to those who won't 
>play.

The OSM project only publishes data 'with strings attached'.  I think we should
not demand from others more than we are willing to do ourselves.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>