On 01/09/11 09:37, John Smith wrote:
On 1 September 2011 18:25, Simon Poole<si...@poole.ch> wrote:
Obviously I would clearly prefer that the mappers in question simply
discover some pragmatism and get over any issues they may have with the
OSMF.
That's an interesting spin on things, wouldn't the pragmatic approach
be for OSM-F to work with CC to come up with a CC-by-SA license that
is deemed more suitable?
If it was more suitable it wouldn't be CC BY-SA, would it? In which
case, why work with the copyright-focussed Creative Commons rather than
Open Data Commons?
Not that I see anything wrong with the current license, in fact the
whole exercise seems like a knee jerk reaction because some think
something "must be done".
It might seem like a knee jerk until you realise that the process has
been going on for well over three years, and counting. Slowest knee jerk
EVER!
Something must clearly be done (CC BY-SA prevents use in combination
with data that has incompatible licenses, and mandates that contributors
must be credited; both of which are pretty much ignored at the moment).
PD would be a perfectly good solution in the eyes of many, including me,
but some people feel their work must be "protected" from commercial
users who might want to improve it without sharing. If you like the
intent of current license, you should like ODbL because it enforces that
intent much more effectively, without the pitfalls of CC BY-SA.
J.
--
Jonathan Harley : Managing Director : SpiffyMap Ltd
Email: m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
Post: The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
