On 27 July 2012 20:59, Jaime Crespo <jy...@jynus.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 2012 7:03 PM, "andrzej zaborowski" <balr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 27 July 2012 00:14, Pavel Pisa <ppisa4li...@pikron.com> wrote: >> > Dear OSMF responsible, >> > >> > even recent discussions about ODBl compatibility with Wikipedia >> > problems shows that there can be problems or complications >> > with ODBL only licensed data. >> > >> > I.e imagine quite realistic scenario. I like to map >> > marked hiking paths in our area. The guideposts texts >> > are critical information. They are usually acquired >> > as photos and they are hold in Wikipedia commons. >> > We have guideposts in map as well, it would worth >> > to run script to extract already know guideposts locations, >> > match them with commons and run update and preparation of >> > commons pages. But this in ODBl language derivative >> > of database. But pages and text (i.e. locations) >> > in commons are CC-BY-SA. Same if amenity water >> > is imported etc. We would be in the fact forbidden >> > to use our own data. >> > >> > More people would feel much more safe if they know that >> > they can access their future contributions under CC-BY-SA >> > as well. Now all data are CC-BY-SA compatible. >> >> I want to +1 this request, though I think I've said this already. The >> motivation to contribute to a project will be much lower knowing that >> some consumers won't be able to use the data I contribute. It'll be >> more like contributing to Google Map Maker. There are existing users >> of OSM's free geodata who do cool things with this data, and won't be >> able to continue to use OSM. >> >> This could be used to argue for CC-By or public domain but ODbL and >> CC-By-SA are the only two licenses that OSM can use right now, at no >> cost. CC-By-SA is also quite popular, and that is important for >> share-alike licenses. > > Database elements (e.g. coordinates) are in public domain with the new > license. Only database and derivative databases are to be ODbL. Produced > works have attribution-only requirements. Please read carefully the license > text and previous messages on this list.
That's not the point, you still can't mix the future OSM data with CC-By-SA data in the same database and publish that. This ability to "mix" is one of the main features of free licensing and if you're using a license incompatible with every other project, your data becomes useless for a lot of uses. > > Commons has no problems on accepting different free licenses, like gpl > derived screenshots. With ODBL there would be even less problems, as > produced works can be cc licensed with no problem. The new license may not > be perfect, but it does not suffer from the problems you say. > > You should focus on bigger Wikipedia issues like having Google derived data > on its pages (coordinates, I can give you multiple offenders), which > -depending on the jurisdiction- violates G's database rights and license > terms, and even it is encouraged (or it was in the past). That's kinda offtopic here, but there's a lot of background on why wikipedia does what it does, including Google's own statements. Their stance on this is different than OSM's but you can't say one of them is correct and the other not. Cheers _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
