[OSM-talk] Results from license debate - assing (c) to OSMF

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tom Chance wrote:

> I don't support any move towards a less community-centric licensing regime
> (e.g. public domain)

No kidding? ;)

> I don't want OSM to take away non-cartographer's
> rights to satisfy certain cartographer's business models

I will charitably assume that this is a misreading of (one of the)  
proposed arguments for more liberal licensing, rather than an intended  
slur. However, it does come across rather like the latter... and it's  
not founded on truth.

It doesn't actually make an enormous practical difference to my work  
whether or not I can use OSM data to draw maps. I have more than  
enough source data (like, out-of-copyright coverage of the UK and  
10,000 miles of GPS tracks) for the canal and railway maps I draw. The  
one area where I can use OSM data is in incidental street plans (e.g.  
when we run a "Canal Town" boxout in the magazine), and frankly the  
quality of cartography and size of coverage in such maps would be so  
negligible that it makes no difference to me whether it's share-aliked  
or otherwise.

So I, at least, am not proposing that there should be a licence change  
simply "to satisfy certain cartographers' business models". I am  
proposing it because I _believe_ it is best for OSM and for the  
encouragement of good cartography. You're not the only one who has  
ideals, you know!

cheers
Richard