On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Mike Collinson wrote: > Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative > works. It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and > information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing. If you believe > strongly in pandemic virality, then it is a good thing. If you believe > that all the chain of Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more > constrained, then it is just dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why > most of us want to move away from it as our own license. Our primary goal > is disseminating data we collect ourselves.
alternate conclusion, If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved, then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary. If you believe that the data should be completely freely available then neither ODBL nor CC-by-SA is appropriate, and a CC0 licence should be considered. If your major concern is that improvements to the data should be fed back into the common pool of data, then CC-by or CC-by-SA would be suitable (and maybe others) Please leave out very emotive language like "dangerous" and unproven assertions like "most of us" without defining "us". I realise that it was headed "personal conclusion". _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk