On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote:
(After a hiatus - I've been discussing this off-list with Anthony and
others.)
[snip]
One thing that's confusing me, is that
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright does not say what license
applies to the contents. ODbL specifically says that it only applies
to the database and a separate license is required for the contents.
It suggests that a notice should be inserted "prominently in all
relevant locations" which surely includes the copyright wiki page.
I remember earlier discussions on this list about using ODcL for the
contents. Was this what was agreed on? LWG, anyone?
Hi Jonathan,
The short answer is the the contributor terms control content and that
the relevant wording there is heavily modelled on ODcL. As a low
priority TODO, I'll trace back the exact mechanism to see if we can be
more obvious about the relationships on the copyright page without using
tortuous language. It has been a while.
ODbL can basically be used in two ways; a (or even multiple) contents
license more restrictive than the ODbL itself or less restrictive. The
first case can be useful if distributing a collection of things,
content, that are useful discretely, for example photos or scientific
papers. In that case, the database can be downloaded freely, sent
around to others and used in-house, but each photo might have a
commercial fee-paying license if it was then extracted and published in
a magazine. We used the second case as we wanted a "one stop shop"
whereby end users only have to consider one license and not compare and
contrast. The CTs, for example, give end users no extra rights and no
extra freedoms.
Mike
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
