[OSM-talk] New site about the license change

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Tue Nov 16 10:56:52 GMT 2010


On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Mike Dupont <
jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Kevin Peat <kevin at kevinpeat.com> wrote:
> > Personally I don't care if the current license is weak as most
> > organisations will respect its spirit and if a few don't who cares, it
> > doesn't devalue our efforts one cent.
>
> I think if there is any case of people stealing data from osm they
> will get hung from a tree by the community.
> the community is the most important part of osm or of any project and
> this license issue is really not very productive in that regards.
> the other side effect of the license change means that some people
> will be able to make more commercial maps from the data and will
> benefit from the change, this minority will benefit a lot from the
> change, it is questionable if it is worth the effort and stress.
>
>
It's clear that the current license is sufficient in most cases.  In recent
months Google, Nike, Waze have all responded quickly and appropriately when
it has been pointed out that they've, probably inadvertently, violated the
attribution clause.  And those that wouldn't care are also those who
wouldn't take any notice of ODbL either.

The license change process was based on the premise, some two or three years
ago, that the current license doesn't work for OSM.  There's never been any
evidence to back that up and our experiences so far suggest that *in
practice* it actually does the job pretty well.

Two years on it's hard to see what problems the license change would
actually fix.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20101116/6114d65b/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list