[Osmf-talk] License with or without virus

Henk Hoff henk at toffehoff.nl
Tue Dec 8 02:54:12 UTC 2009


2009/12/8 Elizabeth Dodd <edodd at medemail.com.au>

> one year ago I was in favour of licence change. the inevitable slow change
> of
> legal minds against the rapid uptake of crowd sourced mapping has increased
> the potential damage substantially
>
> You've said it right *YOU* were in favour a year ago. That doesn't mean
everybody.


> But the change is only considered in one potential direction, and it
> appears
> that there are many mappers who would change it the other way if a change
> was
> to occur.
>
> It also appears that there are many mappers who do want to go this
direction.


> No answer yet on the "terms of reference of the LWG"
> because here, months ago, is where the decision was actually made, when the
> LWG ToR were drafted.
>
> The OSMF should have the goals of the project in mind and should pursue
continuation of the project.
Input of the contributors is one. The LWG has also had multiple meetings
with lawyers and other experts within Intellectual Property. Based on all
information, this is the proposal the LWG is making in order to get a better
license for OSM.

That doesn't mean the LWG is not open to input from the community and hasn't
acted upon it.

Cheers,
Henk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20091208/e06c4304/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list