[OSM-talk] Suggestion to add SA clause to CT section 3, describing "free and open license"

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 01:32:53AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If NearMap imagery is so important for OSM in Australia - and there
> are countries which have been mapped very well without aerial
> imagery of note - then let's make an exception for NearMap, let's
> include their data without them signing the CT. This would mean that
> if at any later time the license is changed, NearMap would have to
> be asked specifically if they like that license. I assume that this
> is something we will have to do for some other sources as well.
> 
> No reason to drop or modify the CT for everybody because of that.

Not because of NearMap, no way would I just give in to some organisation
who feels they can’t fit with our terms.

However, I think the concerns are entirely reasonable, and if we say we
are going to license our data under the ODbL + DbCL we should stick to
it.

Is it really that bad to ask that the contributor terms require any new
licence to be in the same spirit as the ODbL + DbCL or other share alike
licenses?

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100720/320b223c/attachment.pgp>