[OSM-talk] Using editors to indicate license preference.

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Sun Jan 17 15:47:35 GMT 2010


On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:42 AM, DavidD <thewinch at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2010/1/17 John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>:
> > 2010/1/18 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> >> I didn't say it's invalid so much as it's redundant.
> >>
> >> All contributions are effectively PD anyway.
> >
> > That still isn't the point, people want to produce PD data that is
> > readily accessible to all, not PD data shrink wraped with another
> > license.
>
> OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD
> people deal with that?


Well, how will the ODbL people deal with that?  If OSM switches to ODbL, all
the CC-BY-SA-only data has to go into the trash can anyway.

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
>
>> How exactly does one get protection as a database owner?  It's unclear to
>> me how OSMF would get protection as a database owner since they're not the
>> ones actually doing anything.
>>
>
> You're right, just like Google doesn't own any of the data the GMM users
> upload because Google doesn't do anything.
>

Yes, I know I'm right.  And so does Google.  It's why Google doesn't host
database dumps or provide an unrestricted API for GMM.

That said, Google does a lot more than OSMF.  At least Google chooses what
types of data to include/exclude.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100117/7c15a43c/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list