[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Thank you, LWG

Jonas Kr├╝ckel osm at jonas-krueckel.de
Sun Dec 6 10:01:33 UTC 2009

Am 06.12.2009 um 10:47 schrieb Florian Lohoff:

> On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 09:13:14PM -0700, SteveC wrote:
>>> Richard Weait schrieb:
>>>> I think the LWG has done a good job on a difficult task.  A task that
>>>> we, as a community, asked them to do for us because we couldn't
>>>> implement a license change as a group of 20,000 (at the time)
>>>> individual mappers.  I'm glad that the LWG looked after our shared
>>>> concerns so ably, by consulting with lawyers, the Creative Commons,
>>>> the Open Knowledge Foundation and the community at large over the few
>>>> years of the license discussion to date.
>>> I'm sorry, but for the last two years I can't remember asking for a
>>> license change at all.
>> And there lays the point, we should all do what Ulf asks for.
> So we should do the YOU or the OSMF asks us to do?
> Ulf is not alone - I havent asked  ... And a lot of people did
> not do so too.
> Even that i didnt ask for a license change - the new license is much to complex
> for my mind - CC-BY-SA hasnt shown any real problems up to now so i see the
> whole discussion as an artificial problem. 

I'm not sure if the CC-BY-SA license is really simpler than ODbL. Just look at this website here http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/ and you'll see that the ODbL is as simple as CC-BY-SA. Plus it's now clear how to attribute correct and when your derived work also has to be ShareAlike and when not.

Personally I'm also a PD fan and the only thing I was missing from the LWG was a survey to see if the majority of the OSM contributors wants to keep the attribution and Share alike component in a new license or if they would want completely free data under PD or CC0.


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list