|| ||Steve Bennett <stevagewp-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org> |
|| ||"Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk-3+rWM/WnaLOn4i5uJCXUsti2O/JbrIOy-AT-public.gmane.org> |
|| ||CTs and the 1 April deadline |
|| ||Tue, 4 Jan 2011 18:53:04 +1100|
|| ||Article, Thread
I've just had my attention drawn to these lines in the minutes from 11-12 Dec:
"The Board unanimously agrees that it is time to move forward after
several years of work on the new license.
The OSMF board mandates the LWG to enforce mandatory acceptance of the
CT and ODBL in order to edit the database by March 31st."
My first question is: which version of the CT is referred to there?
Does this mean the totally broken v1.0, the partially broken proposed
v1.2.2, or some hopefully non-broken v1.3?
If the answer to the previous is "some hopefully non-broken v1.3",
what if it is not ready in time for April?
I'm extremely concerned about the potential loss of all
Nearmap-derived data for Australia: both because it represents a lot
of high quality mapping, and personally because of the hundreds of
hours of my own effort that will be completely wasted. And seemingly
there is not an irreconcilable difference here, but simply that
Nearmap and the LWG have not had the time or resources to find a
wording that is suitable to both parties.
Have I misunderstood the situation, or is that pretty much the size of
it: on April 1st, all Nearmap-derived data (and presumably data from
certain other providers who also use a strict CC-BY-SA licence) will
to post comments)