[Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
grahamjones139 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 20:06:21 BST 2011
I have also made some contributions based on OS OpenData and have just
accepted the new CTs.
I am disappointed that it got to the point that we had to accept or decline
the new terms before the issue over the OS data has been settled, but
reasoned that the vast majority of my contributions have been from surveys
and I have put a source tag everywhere that I have used OS data.
Declining the new terms would have been silly because it would have meant my
non-OS based contributions being removed, and I have nothing against the new
licence or contributor terms.
If someone decides that OS data is not appropriate they can identify them
and remove them.
That said I think we would be stupid as an organisation to change our
license to one that is not compatible with OS data given that the UK
government has released it - I am just not that interested in licences!
On 19 April 2011 17:29, Brian Prangle <bprangle at gmail.com> wrote:
> Being cast as the most guilty party "threatening OSM" by having the
> greatest number of OS data edits and signing the CTs - I thought I'd
> contribute to make it clear where I stand. I'm absolutely with Peter Miller
> on this. I trust the OSMF implicitly to get it right which is why I signed
> the CTs. Why make the OS data available to us if we can't use it? I'm not
> worried in the slightest by this - I'm too busy mapping. All I see these
> discussions doing is generating heat but no light
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB