Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
I guess I do understand that congenital/viral aspect of the license. What I am finding hard to understand is what does OSM get in return for this feature? I can see that the expectation is that users of OSM will need to share alike and hence enrich the data and its contributors. However, due to that very same congenital/viral feature wouldn't a large number of potential users simply choose to not "inherit" or be "infected" by OSM? In turn wouldn't this choice to not use OSM reduce the prospect of share alike infections/inheritance? On Oct 29, 2014 9:37 AM, "Rob Myers" wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 29/10/14 07:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > actually this would remove the virality from the license, a feature > > that was chosen on purpose to be included. The basic idea of share > > alike licenses is to "infect" other stuff that gets in contact with > > the share-alike content/data to become share-alike itself. > > It's "congenital", not "viral". It propagates by inheritance, not > contagion. > > ;-) > > - - Rob. > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUUPtbAAoJECciMUAZd2dZ91cH/1jbALOpOXN2kjNmTI1WkpuO > nk4HYxHMkuuGhJTjQ9FYFAAhDMw89DJ7AUMCP6AdjPCxQzlysgiOCyE5I/398MJi > qo3QWDlaWoV7MMiUzZuICwzbH3+LJAqFx886LLr/GSaH0pLkI0FsS0jZ1oMg+yaC > g7vu44F0KG4EPXZlfeJNp5ameCQTl4FqTBH6aB8ru35+Tu4w2TMbbbFDS/+XQg1A > Wc7uhOzUUA8ktTqZFPdH9dlbHE5Y9an9y140K+MoBXYvId9UEaLhV6PeOA/kYOA7 > luYbUePtjX9EALbqtipslaAXVGQdfmtaJd159AHKEdRGX8wX4tOWCWSmxl6C2V4= > =ejQk > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contents Licence for OSM Data
I am unpaid nobody in the context of last two emails on this thread. In my opinion, it sure would be nice for users (not contributors alone) if there was lot more clarity. I imagine, from my point of view, that contributors and other stakeholders might also benefit from commercial users if the license is clear that only data gathered from OSM be shared alike leaving derivative or collective out of share alike if possible. Thank you for giving me a voice. On Oct 29, 2014 7:34 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" wrote: > > 2014-10-29 12:32 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse : > >> What I read was "MapBox pays some bloke called Kevin > > > doesn't seem to be a nobody in this field though: > "Kevin is the Executive Director of the Centre for Spatial Law and Policy > and a lawyer focusing on the unique legal and policy issues associated with > spatial data and spatial technology. These issues include intellectual > property rights, licensing, liability, privacy and national security. He > writes and speaks extensively on spatial law and technology. He is a member > of the Board of Directors of the Open Geospatial Consortium and is active > in other geospatial associations..." > > so regardless that by asking 2 lawyers about geodata and licenses you'd > typically get 3 different interpretations (so I am told), this bloke at > first glance looks like an expert for this topic... > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
