[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status
vance at axxe.co.uk
Thu Dec 3 12:04:10 UTC 2009
I agree and think that SteveC's comments are common sense and allow
contributors the OPTION of releasing their data under a less-restrictive
license if they see fit.
It doesn't mean that all OSM data should be available under that license, or
that we think that the LWG is steamrolling ODbL.
2009/12/3 Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>
> SteveC wrote:
> No, you misunderstand entirely.
> I am not at all suggesting that the vote is:
> [ ] OSM should go ODbL
> [ ] OSM should stay CC-BY-SA
> [ ] OSM should go PD
> I am suggesting, as I have been since before LWG existed:
> [ ] Yes, OSM should go ODbL
> [ ] No, OSM should stay CC-BY-SA
> [ ] I don't care. Treat my contributions as PD.
> It is not a vote for turning the whole project PD. (I like ODbL.) It
> is a way for the user to signal that _their_ contributions are PD. It
> is, to borrow your phrase of a couple of years ago, "formalising the
> scheme that already exists on the wiki".
> It affords the user the right to licence their own contributions more
> liberally than the default (just like, say, Flickr), which is a matter
> of respect. But it's also an immensely useful user preference for OSMF
> to keep if, say, some unexpected asteroid-related licence incident
> happens next year, and another relicensing is required. If you have
> 500 PD users in the project, that's 500 fewer people whose agreement
> you need second time round.
> But hey, this response was written on a FreeBSD-based OS so clearly I
> should get down with the cool Linux kids. Apple seem to be doing ok
> though. ;)
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk