On 28 August 2010 15:37, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com <jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > please see this as well, > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons >
What is missing there is that Creative Commons have said that a CC-BY-SA license is not suitable for a database of factual information. Quote: "Creative Commons does not recommend using Creative Commons licenses for informational databases, such as educational or scientific databases." Reference: http://sciencecommons.org/old/databases/ Creative Commons gave up in their attempt to creates a Sharealike/Attribution license for factual information: Reference: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001982.html ODbL solves the issues they had with the produced works provision. ODbL is a license that was designed with OpenStreetMap in mind by the legal team from Open Data Commons. It covers factual information and preserves the Attribution and Share-Alike provisions that exist under our CC-BY-SA license. > they say the odbl is not a copyleft license but a contract... > Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European Union has the "Database Directive" but most other countries do not. I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software license was used as a model for creating the ODbL. PLEASE... Follow ups on legal-talk list. Thread started here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004221.html Regards Grant _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
