2010/1/18 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com>: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 22:31, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:46 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> 2010/1/18 DavidD <thewi...@gmail.com>: >>>> OSM has masses of CC-BY-SA data and contributors. How will the PD >>>> people deal with that? Start replacing the existing CC-BY-SA data and >>>> reverting any edits to PD data by CC-BY-SA contributors? >>> >>> The point more is for new data, than existing >> >> If this is only applicable to "new data", why not upload that to a >> separate server, and later import it into OSM as necessary? >> >> I'm not even sure that any contribution to OSM can really be called >> "new data", as most "new" data will be "created with reference to a >> point Y that was share-alike licensed and thus becomes a derived work" >> - as Frederik pointed out. > > For what it's worth the OSMF legal counsel does not agree that data is > viral in this way: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#Features_touched_by_multiple_contributors.2C_not_all_of_whom_sign_up_to_new_terms >
That page is probably erring on the side of caution, but it states that cc-by-sa probably doesn't count against geo data and then goes on to say anyone not agreeing to cc-by-sa will have to have their data removed... Either cc-by-sa is valid and is enforcible and the information should be removed, or it isn't enforcible and the cc-by-sa data can transition without any problems... Also if geodata isn't copyrightable, then information can't be derived from it, since the license isn't valid. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
