| ▲ | Rygian 6 hours ago | |
In the article, you claim: > There are also important licensing questions. A user’s permission to send a library to OSM is not automatically the same as having a sufficiently clear right to release that factual information under terms compatible with OSM which would imply that you could not make available your database available for download under ODbL. Yet you have made it available under that license. Maybe that part of the article needs further editing? Also, if the data of your tool is now available under ODbL, then the tasks related to importing it into OSM can be effectively performed by anyone, not necessarily you. | ||
| ▲ | andreagrandi 6 hours ago | parent [-] | |
> Maybe that part of the article needs further editing? Yes, I should edit it. I had not though about the bulk download until another user on Mastodon suggested it to me. > Also, if the data of your tool is now available under ODbL, then the tasks related to importing it into OSM can be effectively performed by anyone, not necessarily you. Definitely. I would be more than glad if libraries which are not on OSM were added back, I just don't have the required spare time to go through all the process and also maintain it. | ||