[OSM-legal-talk] Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline

[Steve Coast]

> On Oct 14, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Tom Lee <tlee at mapbox.com> wrote:
> 
> > He’s clearly not suggesting that.
> >
> > He’s suggesting that if you want to put geocodes in OSM that you go do that, and create a community around it, rather than this method of “change the license or we won’t do anything” which Fred feels is hijacking.
> 
> If I misunderstood, I apologize. Frederik's email discussed the burden of maintaining address data, the relative lack of interest in addresses within the OSM community, and the implicit obligation to contribute labor to the data's maintenance; and it didn't mention licensing at all. That's why I read it the way I did. But perhaps it will be best to let him clarify his own words.
> 
> In that same spirit of clarification: at no point in this thread have I asked for a change to the license.

Sorry “add a guideline or we won’t do anything”.[1]

It’s the threat he’s probably reacting to. It would just be more efficient all around to build the community since whether you get your data in OSM by force or by happy local community editors you still need a community at the other end to maintain it, right?

Best

Steve

[1] - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2015-October/008288.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20151014/20690723/attachment.html>