[OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

[SteveC]

On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:53, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a  
> policy*.
>
> PD-like licenses?  You mean for databases of facts?  Or am I  
> misinterpreting "PD-like"?
>

Not quite, their policy is that data 'should' be free. Even if say I'm  
a company looking to release data under somethig viral, their response  
is that I am wrong and PD like things should be my only choice.

> It's pretty stupid but that's their policy.
>
> Well, you may think Creative Commons is "stupid", but I hope others  
> will give them a chance and listen to what they have to say.  I  
> think they will, considering that Creative Commons is well known and  
> respected, compared to Open Data Commons, who doesn't even seem to  
> have an article on Wikipedia.
>

Oh they have been involved, see legal-talk archives back and forth,  
Richard probably knows when and can link.

I think the moral stance they take on PD for data is stupid not the  
whole enterprise of course.

> I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM  
> would even consider resorting to "browse-through license agreements"  
> in order to impose terms which go beyond that of copyright.  It's  
> the exact oppose of what I'd expect from a site which calls itself  
> "open" and "free".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091205/cd9aec52/attachment.html>