Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Tordanik wrote: >> I see that the ODbL fits your particular use case nicely. But as >> you acknowledge, things look different for people with other >> use cases. I expect that I'm one of those people whose favourite >> use cases won't benefit from ODbL - quite the opposite, in fact. > > I can certainly see your issues. But I think that this is what Steve was > talking about in the SOTM-EU keynote when he said "let's move to ODbL and > sort out the details in v2".
And why the hurry? It seems premature to consider discontinuing CC-BY-SA database publication while there are still major problems with the suggested replacement. > None of what you've highlighted is insuperable. I did mention some exclusive benefits of CC-BY-SA in my original mail, such as the popularity of the license that is impossible to match for ODbL, and the relative complexity compared with ODbL. Both are consequences of the very idea of ODbL (a license specifically for databases, using various legal constructs in addition to copyright for enforcing its requirements), and cannot be fixed completely. But even to address my immediate concerns, several concessions would need to be included in the community guidelines, for example that * software which is freely available (at no cost, without discrimination) can be considered a given by the method description * databases which are available under an ODbL-compatible license can also be considered a given by the method description * publication of a produced work can be continued indefinitely even if the means (software/databases) to reproduce the derivative database cease to be publicly available * informal descriptions can be sufficient in straightforward cases, such as referring to an unmodified program with obvious configuration by its name only. The goal of all this would be to let the creator of a produced work get away with an one-line "attribution" text similar to CC-BY-SA's in those cases where all software and data used in the process is publicly available anyway. Of course, giving the creator the option to choose CC-BY-SA would instantly achieve this goal. ;) > So I wouldn't advocate "CC-BY-SA or ODbL" for the project; I think ODbL is a > better way of providing share-alike. But personally, I'd not be upset if we > ended up with dual-licensing, because it's slightly closer to public domain. Thank you for clarifying this, I was a bit confused about your position before. -- Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
