I counted the votes for PD license so far. Sorry, if I have missed
anyone!!
Jordan S Hatcher: PDDL
Joseph Gentle: Wikipedia PD / PDDL
Nic Roets: Wikipedia PD
Sebastian Spaeth: Wikipedia PD
Rob Myers: CC Zero (Wikipedia PD)
Gustav Foseid: CC Zero / Wikipedia PD
According to this, Wikipedia style
I'm happy with that. Thankyou :)
-J
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Kari Pihkala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I counted the votes for PD license so far. Sorry, if I have missed
anyone!!
Jordan S Hatcher: PDDL
Joseph Gentle: Wikipedia PD / PDDL
Nic Roets: Wikipedia PD
Sebastian Spaeth:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 4:41 AM, Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can we get a vague show of hands about what people think of this? I
+1 for the wikipedia version. http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html
___
legal-talk mailing list
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Rob Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Wikipedia version is the best current PD Dedication but I really
would recommend waiting on CC Zero.
CC Zero explicitly mentions database rights, which I think is a good thing,
but I would be ahppy with the Wikipedia
We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if
we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments.
I don't think its that big a deal - we could just say if you edit a
node, your edits are also under the same PD license as the node is
currently under or something.
Joseph Gentle wrote:
We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if
we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments.
Yeah you will - a single PD disclaimer of rights (PDDL, CC0,
Wikipedia-like, WTFPL, doesn't really matter), with an
attribution/disclaimer
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:46AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote:
We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if
we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments.
Exactly, the point to keep in mind here is that you don’t relicense
stuff (at least not without much
Exactly. I wouldn't like to see nodes with a license tag. Once again, it
over-complicates things. Or do you want people asking, which PD data can
they use and which they cannot??
Importing PD data (such as TIGER) into OSM/PD isn't a problem. PD is PD.
I vote for the Wikipedia PD style of public
Frederik Ramm wrote:
The more complex thing is that some jurisdictions make it really
difficult for you to give away your rights so generously.
Which is a splendid reason to use WTFPL, reproduced here in its
entirety:
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
80n wrote:
Perhaps PD is not as simple as it seems at first sight.
The thing that is simple about PD is what contributors want - they
simply want to make the data available to anyone, forever, without
Sorry, I've been busy writing up research proposals and whatnot. I'm
starting a phd next year (woohoo!).
I don't like the standard creative commons PD license. Their CC-zero
license is ok, but not finished. Here's the wikipedia license from
earlier in the thread:
I, the copyright holder of this
Hi,
Joseph Gentle wrote:
However, I'm a bit nervous about the ODC PD license abandoning the
publisher's moral rights. That means I can legally come along and say
that I drew all the maps myself; or I could draw offensive pictures
out of your roads and say that was you. I don't mind if people
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I take back what I previously said to 80n about all PD advocates
being on the same page ;-)
We're very close, and we don't have to agree. Data published with free
non-viral licenses can coexist peacefully. We're really
Hi,
Joseph Gentle wrote:
I don't understand the use case for people passing off my work as
their own.
I don't either. But trying to force *anything* onto your users means
that you cannot let go of the data - you're then automatically entering
this whole license swamp because where you make
Joseph Gentle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thats not true. I don't think the US Government has waived their moral
rights regarding the TIGER data. As I understand it, placing work in
the public domain does not automatically waive your moral rights on
the work.
Moral rights are a very murky,
On 15 Oct 2008, at 14:04, John Wilbanks wrote:
Jordan Hatcher is the author of the Public Domain Dedication
License by
the way, not CC. However, the PDDL is the only license that SC
currently
certifies as compliant with the protocol - CC Zero isn't there yet.
Yep!
BTW, I have changed
Don't set up too much of your own structure just yet, because it is very
well possible that it makes sense to fly under the flag
OpenStreetMap/PD once things are a bit clearer, but you cannot
possibly expect many from OSM to endorse the thing when so little is
clear about it... personally, I
What does OSM Foundation think about the PD repository? Would it make sense
to host both licences under the name OpenStreetMap or would it be
confusing? How much OSMF wants to be part of the PD version? After all
I think most of the decisions will be the same for both (e.g.
deciding about tags,
I created a wiki page for the public domain map, have a look at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Public_Domain_Map . There is also a
link from the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License to
the new page.
I listed all public domain licenses - we need to decide which one to
I was looking at the OSGeo data committee wondering where their data
was as they seem to have the same goals as us.
I don't think picking the right PD license will be a particularly
large hurdle. It is certainly less complicated than selecting a
share-alike license :) The wikipedia pd license
20 matches
Mail list logo
