On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote: >> >> Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a >> policy*. > > PD-like licenses? You mean for databases of facts? Or am I misinterpreting > "PD-like"? > >> It's pretty stupid but that's their policy. > > Well, you may think Creative Commons is "stupid", but I hope others will > give them a chance and listen to what they have to say. I think they will, > considering that Creative Commons is well known and respected, compared to > Open Data Commons, who doesn't even seem to have an article on Wikipedia.
i have listened to what they have to say, and it makes perfect sense. they recognise that databases like OSM's don't have much basis for protection in copyright law, so they correctly deduce that there are two options: 1) drop requirements enforced by copyright law. this results in a "PD-like" license, to whit: CC0. 2) enforce requirements by law other than copyright law. this results in a database rights/contract license, to whit: ODbL. creative commons decided, as a policy, that option (1) was preferable, as it places fewer restrictions on the use of the data. however, it drops the share-alike and attribution requirements. they clearly felt that this would provide the best benefit to the scientific community. OSM, on the other hand, was already using a license which contained those requirements, even if they weren't enforceable. everyone who joined the site signed up to an attribution/share-alike license; CC BY-SA. option (2) is closer in requirements to that license than option (1) and there are several people in the community who have repeatedly stated their desire for such requirements. > I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM would > even consider resorting to "browse-through license agreements" in order to > impose terms which go beyond that of copyright. It's the exact oppose of > what I'd expect from a site which calls itself "open" and "free". i'm not sure i understand your point. OSM has a license which (tries to) impose requirements on the re-use of the data, but that's still "open" and "free", right? we're talking about moving to another license with very similar requirements, but a different implementation, and that's not "open" and "free" anymore? it would really help me if i could understand your position. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
