[Osmf-talk] Regarding tile licensing

[Simon Poole]

Both the evaluation document and the minutes of the LWG meeting in which
it was discussed are available and have been for a month or so (I
believe the agenda for the board meeting has links, otherwise I'll dig
them out later).

We did consider "licensing the tiles on ODbL terms" and we've discussed
perhaps adding that as an alternative. As a sole solution it, iMHO,
simply throws a very big spanner in to the works. It isn't that the ODbL
is more complicated than CC BY 4.0, it just simply isn't something
people are comfortable with in the sense that they think they know what
it implies.

With CC BY it is "ah we just need to provide attribution and everything
is OK", even though they've probably have never actually read it and
don't have the foggiest idea what it really says. So the whole licence
choice is about reducing friction as far as possible, getting what our
data licence requires (attribution) and making it easy to reuse our
signature map.

Simon

Am 19.06.2019 um 00:16 schrieb Peter Barth:
> Hi Christoph,
>
> thanks for raising these points. I read that explicit statement
> about data base rights as you do. I guess 4(b) removes much of that
> problem again, but it still feels a bit strange.
>
> Simon, when LWG publishes its recommendation, can you also please
> shed some light into decission making process? Especially who was
> involved?
>
> Is there any reason why not just stick to (c) OSM Contribs, ODbL 
> without an "artistic" license. Not to ask if the artistic value is 
> in the rendering process or in the (CC0 licensed) style production.
>
> Peda
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20190619/0f4e1fa1/attachment.sig>