[OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] In what direction should OSM go?

[Elizabeth Dodd]

This belongs back on talk
with a new header.
OSM states that it is a free map, free to edit and free to use 
Whether the database should contain imported stuff, traced stuff, or
only personally surveyed stuff is a very big issue and any intent now
to alter the basic rules of inputting should be back on Talk.


On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:03:15 +0200
Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Francis Davey wrote:
> > My suggestion - which I believe has been/is being chewed over by the
> > LWG - is that the CT's make an alternative arrangement for
> > contributors who want to contribute material that is licensed under
> > some other licence.
> 
> Any future license change would then be constrained to the common 
> denominator of all these licenses *or* risk repeating all the data
> loss whining that we're seeing now.
> 
> The question I am asking myself is: Is the ability to import as much 
> government data as possible really worth the hassle? And my personal 
> answer is a clear no; because to me, the value of imported data is
> very small, almost neglibile compared to data contributed by members.
> 
> I am not against imports in general; I believe there are some
> isolated cases where a government or other dataset has really helped
> the project. But I don't see any individual import, or the ability to
> import data at all, as crucial for OSM's success.
> 
> I am especially surprised about the mood in the UK community. The UK
> is where OSM started because David didn't want to be bossed around by 
> Goliath any longer; it is this "let's show the OS what a bunch of
> hobby mappers can do" attitude that has given OSM much of its energy
> in the early days. But today, it seems to me that half of the UK
> community is of the opinion that OSM is dead if it cannot use OS
> "open" data. If that had been the mood from day one, OSM would never
> have started at all.
> 
> I firmly believe that collecting third-party geodata into an user 
> editable pool is NOT the main purpose of OSM, and even detracts us.
> 
> Thus, I would never accept future liabilities in return for being 
> allowed to import a third-party data source.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
>