Hi, On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Jim Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > My suspicion is that a system where each user can choose a different > licence (or set of licences) for their contribution would either fall apart > (as some entities would need to be rolled back to the last version > compatible with the current use case and other items would co-exist under > different licences as different entities in the db). > > I mostly agree with this, but I think it could possibly work with > forward compatible licenses (e.g. PD -> CC-BY -> CC-BY-SA). > Agreed, Tim, i think that the licence choices should certainly be listed in the correct order http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/ PD - is the most open, Public Domain Declaration<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=pd> [image: No Limits] followed by Creative Commons Zero License (CC0 1.0 Universal)<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=cc0> [image: Creative Commons] <http://creativecommons.org/>[image: Preferred][image: No Limits] followed by Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=ccby> [image: Creative Commons] <http://creativecommons.org/>[image: Attribution] followed by Open Data Commons Attribution License v1.0<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=odc-by> [image: Attribution] followed by Dummy License<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=dummy> followed by Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=ccbysa> [image: Creative Commons] <http://creativecommons.org/>[image: Attribution][image: Sharealike] followed by Open Database License (ODbL) v1.0/Database Contents License (DbCL) v1.0<http://timsc.dev.openstreetmap.org/extralicenses/details.php?declare=odc-odbl> [image: Attribution][image: Sharealike] Or maybe that's not the correct order... but close :) Although in some cases it might be difficult to differentiate... at least it becomes known to the 'community' exactly what the intentions are for each user. Just as the ODBL.de map yes/no is created, a map showing which users prefer which licence can be created. A cool colour-coded map. :) Obviously, not a binding agreement (sadly) and almost a lost-cause for OSM) but for the other maps we would like to know this information. And everyone would like to see, just how many want of each licence. Then we can make arrangements for those left out. In other words, knowing if you sitting in a city of odbl / share-alike / ccBY or PD people... then you have a clear choice to make..... If you are a minority, then there are clear options for you already. (CommonMap.org is alive and kicking BTW). ... then locally mapping meetings can be had to help sort out the data into it's various piles. Cheers, Sam > > In fact, it's kind of already working that way (TIGER is PD, some > other imports are CC-BY, OSM is CC-BY-SA). There just aren't very > good tags for it. > > For incompatible licenses though, I think the better solution is to > have separate databases. >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
