[Openstreetmap] update

[Oliver White]

On Thursday 09 February 2006 17:43, SteveC wrote:
> I'm concerned that nobody was much bothered about ideas of moving to
> cc-non-commercial or putting google ads on the site. A-la Tom's comment
> of becoming the delicious or flickr of maps, not the wikipedia of maps.
> Is that the case?

If nobody has voiced an opinion on this, then I'll say that cc-nc would make 
our data much less useful than cc-by-sa

Firstly, compatibility. cc-by-sa seems to be the norm for various projects 
(e.g. geograph.org.uk), and the CC licenses seem to imply that you can only 
transfer data between identically licensed ones.  

Secondly, Wikipedia. cc-nc can't be used to illustrate articles, and would 
hinder a printed or CD-ROM Wikipedia.

Thirdly, commercial contributors.  If some company wants to finish the map of 
their area in return for being able to display it in their office, or in a 
leaflet, cc-nc would prevent them doing so.

Forthly, it requires everyone to assign copyright if we want to resell cc-nc 
data.  Which in turn prevents us from using the data on our own websites (if 
for whatever reason we don't qualify as noncommercial)

Lastly, how would a cc-nc OpenStreetmap project be any different to Ordnance 
Survey?  You can download their maps for personal use, and display a 
selection on your website.  Didn't we start this project to get *free* maps? 
(with the usual definitions of free)

Others contributors may have differing opinions, but I'm not convinced that 
it's right to sacrifice freedom to redistribute, just to try and secure a 
temporary improvement in cashflow.  

It also might be seen as a "poison pill" to prevent forks (no culinary pun 
intended), which isn't normally a good sign in a free software project.

Regards

OJW