[OSM-talk] Restricting future licenses

Chris Browet cbro at semperpax.com
Thu Aug 19 13:42:24 BST 2010


On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 14:17, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Chris Browet <cbro at semperpax.com> wrote:
>
> > They definitely need to define that, it would help. "an OSI endorsed free
> > and open license", maybe...
>
> OSI don't endorse Open Data Licenses as far as I know.  Open Data
> Commons do and they even consulted with the OSM community in writing
> ODbL.
>

Ok, that was probably a bad example. The point still is: What is the
definition of a "free and open license".
As the Nearmap representative pointed out, this far too vague and can lead
to anything...

BTW, I can see in the Open Data Commons ODbL that at least their license is
"terminable (but only under Section 9)", while the OSM equivalent is
"perpetual, irrevocable". Nice addition...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100819/35be4eb9/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list