[OSM-talk] License

[Adrian Frith]

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 20:56 +0000, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> A Morris wrote:
> > I vote for keeping CC.
> > 
> > I'm totally happy with my CC-licensed map data being used in proprietary
> > navigation systems, speed camera warning systems, printed maps sold in
> > shops, websites with adverts, etc, but when said vendor discovers a new
> > speed camera, I want them to be forced to add that speed camera back
> > into OSM.
> > 
> > That simply won't happen if OSM is PD.
> 
> It won't happen with CC either. That's not what the CC license says.
> 
> It would be great to have an alternative license that does say something
> like that, though, but currently we can't. The foundation only have the
> data under CC, so they can't offer it under anything else.
> 
> I've never advocated going public domain, just letting the foundation
> have a choice over future licensing, rather than fix ourselves to a
> single license now, particularly as that license is incompatible with
> npemaps postcode collection system.

I have a question here: how is it possible that the CC license on the
OSM data would allow proprietary users to redistribute it along with
(say) speed camera data that is not CC-licensed, but prevent npemaps
from redistributing it along with /their/ non-CC-licensed data?

Or am I misinterpreting the situation?

Cheers,
Adrian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070201/d45f3bc6/attachment.pgp>