[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status

Jaak Laineste jaak at nutiteq.com
Thu Dec 3 22:18:22 UTC 2009

>  Ok, lets made a quick testpoll in
> https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dEFnNGJfTG9nMXpUQ19QbT
> ZJc1o
> 0QXc6MA. Please answer, there is just one question.

Thank you very much, I counted 43 answers, the raw data is in

Summary (# of votes and % of answers):
I release my data under ODbL 	- 25	58%
I consider all my data PD anyway and don't claim database protection so do
whatever you want - 	19	44%
I do NOT want a viral license	- 8	19%
Viral license is a must	- 7	16%
Just keep the old CC license	- 4	9%
We need to discuss it more	- 6	14%

1. LGW seems to have mandate to proceed with ODbL
2. There seems to be no clear preference whether license should be viral or
not. In principle both ODbL and CC-SA are viral, ODbL just defines it more

The other comments:
Keep discussions to the LWD mailing list, I may miss the official poll due
to ignoring osmf-talk		
My only concern is the ODbL overraching into related, but not map specific
data, in a db.  An example of this was a pub site with decriptions, reviews
and comments.  It seems to me that the ODbL doesn't overreach, but some of
the chatter on the list makes it seems like some would like for it to.

Yes, please don't bother me again		
The Contributor Terms are also problematic.		
My some of my data is cretive so it does have copyright status.		
Can a single contributor take a license violator to court?		
Frederik for President		

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list