[Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 12:45:24 UTC 2009


On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Jeroen Carelse <jeroen at carelse.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the clear answer 80n.
> One concern less.
> So the biggest threat is not data loss (white areas on a map) but rather
> "old areas"  which remain visible but cannot be touched?
>
> Hope this is a clear question, I doubt it but please give it a try
>
>
Both sets of data will be available.  There will probably be two files:
odbl-planet.osm and ccbysa-planet.osm each containing different data.

You may be able to technically combine the two databases to create a single
map, but I don't think you would be able to publish it as the two licenses
are incompatible.  I think the most you can expect is that the two maps
could be viewed as separate layers.

Can anyone with a deeper understanding of the new license comment on what
would happen if you mixed the two datasets?

80n




> Jeroen
>
>
> On Dec 5, 2009, at 14:29 , 80n wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Jeroen Carelse <jeroen at carelse.com>
> wrote:
> > I try to follow the discussions here but as it get's deeper and deeper
> into legal talk I like to ask a simple question and hope to receive a simple
> answer.
> >
> > will the data as there is now be available after the license change?
> > And if not, why the license change?
> >
> >
> > Jeroen
> > Assuming the license is changed then yes, all the data will still be
> available, but in two different two ways.
> >
> > Some of it will be available under ODbL and all new data will be added
> under ODbL.
> >
> > Some data will not be available under ODbL but will still be available in
> CC-BY-SA.  This data will not be maintained by OSM and will eventually
> become old and stale.
> >
> > The amount of data that falls into each group will depend on the choice
> of each individual contributor.
> >
> > 80n
> >
> >
> > Hope to hear from someone
> > Jeroen
> >
> >
> > On Dec 5, 2009, at 13:36 , James Livingston wrote:
> >
> > > On 04/12/2009, at 7:25 AM, Ulf Möller wrote:
> > >> However, one important limitation of the ODbL is that we cannot accept
> > >> CC-licensed data, nor ODbL-licensed data, from other projects. That
> also
> > >> means there will be no two-way exchange with Wikipedia's Geo project.
> > >
> > > So the current situation is that if someone creates a derived database,
> we probably won't be able to import their data because they (arguably) don't
> have to release it, but we can import data that people have made available
> under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. The proposed situation is that if someone creates a
> derived database, we probably wont be able to import their data because they
> may not agree to the Contributor Terms, and we may not be able to import
> CC-BY(-SA) data for the same reason.
> > >
> > > So, how exactly do we benefit from ODbL + Contributor Terms?
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > osmf-talk mailing list
> > > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> >
> > Pappilanniementie 18
> > 13880 Hattula
> > Finland
> > +358 (0)40 5651956
> > skype: communicationcraft
> > yahoo: jercar2006 at yahoo.com
> > gmail: jeroenca at gmail.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > osmf-talk mailing list
> > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> >
>
> Pappilanniementie 18
> 13880 Hattula
> Finland
> +358 (0)40 5651956
> skype: communicationcraft
> yahoo: jercar2006 at yahoo.com
> gmail: jeroenca at gmail.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091205/70437a25/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list