On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> wrote: > Matt Amos <zerebub...@...> writes: >>we at the LWG have been working very hard to produce the >>license that we think the majority of OSM contributors want. a large >>amount of previous discussion on this and the talk MLs has suggested >>that share-alike is a much-requested feature*, so we've been working >>to that goal as best we can. your suggestion that we're >>overenthusiastic amateurs, sidetracking the project is deeply >>insulting. > > Sorry. I would like to withdraw that remark. It is clear that everyone > working on licence issues has the best interests of the project at heart.
thank you. we all want a license which is clear, elegant, understandable and bulletproof. of course, this isn't possible, but we want to get as close as we can to that ideal. >>let's say, for a moment, that CC BY-SA definitely doesn't work and >>isn't an option. what would you do? if you'd move to a new license, >>which license? > > Assuming, then, that a licence change is required (along with 'deleting' > data from people who don't agree, etc). > > I would prefer one which is CC-compatible, so public domain would work, > or some permissive licence such as CC0. which bits need to be CC-compatible? any "produced work", i.e: tiles, can be released under CC BY-SA with the ODbL, allowing maps to be included in any CC-licensed work or site. does the database itself need to be CC-compatible? > However, if it is not possible to have both CC-compatible and share-alike > properties at the same time, which is what you are suggesting, and if > share-alike is considered the more important of the two, then I would > choose a licence which tries to enforce share-alike through copyright and > database right. the ODbL does this. > In a country where neither copyright nor database right > exists for map data, good luck to them - obviously they've realized the > value of free map data, which is what OSM has been promoting all along. > I would not choose a licence which purports to make a contract, or which > would require click-through agreement before downloading planet files. actually, there's no reason for a click-through to download data. we've discussed this with lawyers and, although it further reduces the enforceability of the license, we don't want to put barriers in the way of people using the data. the current suggestion is to put the license as a link in the header of the file and display the license prominently anywhere that data can be downloaded, just as is the case with CC BY-SA. anyone reading the file, or writing software to manipulate it, would have to be aware of the existence of this link (and of the format of the file) and therefore be aware of the license and their obligations with respect to it. i totally agree it's weaker than a click-through, but it's more practical and better than not having anything. > In general, the ideal licence would not need to be fully watertight in > all jurisdictions, but only strong enough to provide a good deterrent > in practice for most individuals and companies. indeed. but until there's a near-global consensus on database rights (as the Berne convention does for copyrights) we don't have that option. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
