[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Mixing OSM and FOSM data
balrogg at gmail.com
Wed Jan 18 14:39:38 GMT 2012
On 16 January 2012 13:03, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/1/16 Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com>:
>> The OSMF seems determined to avoid any edge cases by being very
>> conservative. Is that necessary? I'm pretty sure not, but it's what
>> we're going to have to live with.
Are you serious? Around where I map I estimate there are 500k to a
couple millions OSM objects who's authors have never agreed to ODbL or
OpenStreetMap CT, but which show green on the license change maps.
And although OSMF has not started publishing data under ODbL yet,
these people already feel like they've been cheated and have no say
over how their work is being used.
They asked me as an ex-osmf member where the official license-clean
map was, where a human readable version of the OSM Contributor Terms
could be had, whether any of the recent recommendations on what can be
considered license-clean has ever been reality-checked with a lawyer,
etc. All these times all I could answer was "no" or "there's none"
and apologise. On the other hand when trying to have those issues
cleared up myself I'm never getting my mails answered.
It really looks like OSM's goal once was to be whiter than white
legally, and now it's mostly about the risk of getting sued (expressly
stated in LWG communication).
More information about the legal-talk