[Osmf-talk] FW: Elections: Avoid Mandate Creep

Jaak Laineste jaak at nutiteq.com
Wed Nov 16 12:00:40 UTC 2011


On 16.11.2011, at 11:23, Ed Avis wrote:
> Jaak Laineste wrote:
> 
>> c) by approval - formally by accepting CT, indirectly also by not
> providing any real alternative
> 
> into this question).  So 'stay with CC-BY-SA' is a fully viable
> alternative, especially
> since upgrading to later CC-BY-SA releases does not require any
> relicensing exercise.

 I did not mean alternative license, but alternative working organization to support the project. Which has same or more mandate from the community. The license is just one of many things to be sorted out there. 

 Anyway, to become the most used map dataset in 2012 the license can be the key thing, as far as I know it (i.e. SA term) is the only thing keeping Google away from using OSM. I chatted with Navteq mapping people some time ago and they told how Google broke every possible license term with them, before switching to TeleAtlas. So being big vendor to Google has its own risks. But as OSM contributor I would not object Google using OSM data, even combined with other datasets. Proper attribution would be just fine.

Jaak 



More information about the osmf-talk mailing list