[OSM-talk] Fwd: Osmarender 5

[Richard Fairhurst]

80n wrote:

> People already spend far too much time *thinking* about licensing.   
> My experiment is more about *doing* something about it.

Mmmmmmmm.

<devil's advocate>

Probably the least contested fundamental of OSM licensing is that  
OSMF doesn't own the copyright, the contributors do.

So if I were to "do something" about licensing, I might add a  
dialogue to Potlatch that appears when you open it for the first time  
(and is subsequently saved as a preference):

       You own the copyright in all the mapping you do. It's up to  
you whether
       other people can make use of your data.

       Which would you prefer?

       [_] I'm happy for people to use all my data without any  
restrictions
       ("public domain")
       [_] I require restrictions on my data conformant with the  
legal code of
       the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 licence, full  
details
       of which are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ 
by-sa/2.0/

where the former resulted in "licence=public_domain" being added to  
your edits.

I think the show of hands at SOTM gives us a good idea what most  
people would tick.

In some ways this is directly comparable: Potlatch is the second most  
popular editor, just like Osmarender is the second most popular map  
layer.

</devil's advocate>

But I'm not planning to do it.

cheers
Richard

P.S. mumble mumble database right mumble mumble probably invalid  
anyway mumble
P.P.S. mumble follow-ups to legal-talk mumble
P.P.P.S. actually, I really like the names on the Osmarender layer,  
it's just the '(c)' that makes me anxious