[OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[Michael Barabanov]

Consider two cases:

1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
view).  In this  case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change.

Where's the issue?

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Heiko Jacobs-2 wrote:
> >
> > But I don't will accept any data loss because only of legal reasons.
> > Wikipedia and other projects changed licence without any loss of data.
> >
> Unfortunately Wikipedia took advantage of a loophole: contributors agreed
> to
> the current GFDL or any later version, and they convinced the people in
> charge of the GFDL to have the next version allow the license change.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/What-could-we-do-to-make-this-licences-discussion-more-inclusive-tp5292284p5304613.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100716/b578d883/attachment.html>