Just because you are not the curator of the license doesnt mean you cant display the full legal text somewhere else...The text wont change. GPL, LGPL, BSD, etc projects usually distribute their software with a license text file with the full legal text and dont depend on 1 single point of failure
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018, 8:13 AM Simon Poole, <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > > > Am 08.04.2018 um 13:30 schrieb James: > > why not host it on the osmf website? > > > Because we don't own the domain (which is what most references to the > actual text use) and are not the curators of the licence (aka we could in > principle simply covertly change the text of the license, having a third > party publish the text is in principle a good idea for such reasons). > > Simon > > PS: that doesn't mean that having our own clean copy as a backup wouldn't > be a good idea, but IMHO the pointer to archive.org is probably the best > of all bad solutions right now. > > > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018, 5:46 AM Simon Poole, <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > >> Currently I'm pointing to >> http://web.archive.org/web/20180317184051/https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ >> however as the opendatacommons.org links are all over the place that >> isn't really a solution. OKI seems to be aware of the issue, but that is >> about all what we know (they seem to be intending to move the site to a >> static website, but there doesn't seem to be a time line or anything >> available that would indicate if that will happen soon or in a decade). >> >> I'm sure waving some $ bills in the direction of OKI/Viderum would get it >> fixed pronto, but it is obviously an undesirable situation that we are >> depending on a third party that doesn't seem to be interested to provide a >> stable link to our licence terms. >> >> Simon >> >> Am 04.04.2018 um 11:27 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >> >> >> >> 2018-04-04 10:23 GMT+02:00 Javier Sánchez Portero <javiers...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hello >>> >>> My name is Javier Sánchez, from Spain. >>> >>> The link to the ODbL 1.0 License [1] is not available since January. >>> This is an annoyance if trying to ask for explicit permission to any data >>> source. Is there any alternative reference? Should not be fine that OSMF >>> provide a copy of the text in their site while opendatacommons.org is >>> down? >>> >>> [1] https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ >>> >>> Regards, Javier >>> >> >> >> >> I agree we should host our own copy of the license. >> >> If you need the license text urgently, you can find it here in the >> Internet Archive (not a general solution obviously): >> >> https://web.archive.org/web/20180316015654/https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ >> >> This is a snapshot from yesterday, so somehow they got through, but I >> confirm I didn't ge the page either, Error 522. >> >> Cheers, >> Martin >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> osmf-talk mailing >> listosmf-talk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
