Am Do, 17.03.2016, 23:47 schrieb Tom Lee: > Tobias, the best option for ensuring the data is usable by OSM is an > explicit statement of permission for the OpenStreetMap project to > incorporate and use the data under the project's terms. This is generally > considered preferable to a dataset that is ODbL-licensed without such a > statement.
I agree. This corresponds exactly to what I have sought so far. > However, I would encourage you to consider non-OSM users as well when > choosing the license. ODbL is not widely used outside of OSM. A license > like CC-BY 4.0 is more widely used and actively maintained. Choosing it > would ensure compatibility with a large number of non-OSM datasets. And if > paired with a permission statement like what's described above, OSM could > still use the data without any license compatibility worries. There is one point, which creates a pain in my stomach: In 4.4a of ODbL v1 only one of the three options is allowed, let's choose ODbL. Since we state "facts are free", the data in there is CC0 (or whatever is equal to this). ODbL is a database license it only regulate the access to the data. What if I put properity or CC-BY data in there, which actually DOES have a copyright? In Germany, manual generalized data by human cartographers are protected by copyrigh - courts have already proofed this. Can ODbL's "BY" overwrite the "BY" of data in another copyright? The share-alike might be an agreement of the database holder to protect his collection of unprotected CC0 (etc.) data only. Best regards, Tobias _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
