Hi, and thank you for maintaining this dataset — it is uniquely valuable for its deep temporal coverage.
This is a follow-up to #3 (2018): a LICENSE (GPL-3.0) was added back then, and in that thread it was noted that "GPL is not well defined for non-software uses" with a request to consider a data-oriented license (CC BY, CC BY-SA, or ODbL). That issue was closed without a resolution.
The README and CONTRIBUTING still do not state a license for the data itself, so downstream reuse remains ambiguous: GPL-3.0 is a software license, and its copyleft / "source code" concepts do not map cleanly onto GeoJSON.
Could you confirm one of the following for the data?
- GPL-3.0 is intended to apply to the data as-is, or
- the data is (or could be) released under a data-appropriate license such as CC BY-SA 4.0, CC0, or ODbL.
A one-line statement in the README would let downstream projects attribute and redistribute the data correctly. Thank you again for the work!
Hi, and thank you for maintaining this dataset — it is uniquely valuable for its deep temporal coverage.
This is a follow-up to #3 (2018): a
LICENSE(GPL-3.0) was added back then, and in that thread it was noted that "GPL is not well defined for non-software uses" with a request to consider a data-oriented license (CC BY, CC BY-SA, or ODbL). That issue was closed without a resolution.The README and CONTRIBUTING still do not state a license for the data itself, so downstream reuse remains ambiguous: GPL-3.0 is a software license, and its copyleft / "source code" concepts do not map cleanly onto GeoJSON.
Could you confirm one of the following for the data?
A one-line statement in the README would let downstream projects attribute and redistribute the data correctly. Thank you again for the work!