Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Not on the map per se, but if you use the map to re-create the original database then - at least that's what I was thinking! - you are not using your own database but you are (again) using the database compiled by the original owner, so you need his permission to use it. This is - I thought - absolutely independent of the channel through which you received the original database. Think of CC0 (waive all database rights) or WTFPL (Can I... trace from the map and sell the result?). With such licenses you can not keep any databse rights. But then again, the ODbL says [a]ny product of this type of reverse engineering activity (whether done by You or on Your behalf by a third party) is governed by this License. I fail to see how a person having access to only the Produced Work (that would be, for instance, a user of an online mapping service using OSM data), could be bound by the ODbL. As long as he or she does not reverse engineer on Your behalf, it seems such reverse engineering would be allowed. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
On 1 Mar 2009, at 11:44, Gustav Foseid wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Not on the map per se, but if you use the map to re-create the original database then - at least that's what I was thinking! - you are not using your own database but you are (again) using the database compiled by the original owner, so you need his permission to use it. This is - I thought - absolutely independent of the channel through which you received the original database. Think of CC0 (waive all database rights) or WTFPL (Can I... trace from the map and sell the result?). With such licenses you can not keep any databse rights. But then again, the ODbL says [a]ny product of this type of reverse engineering activity (whether done by You or on Your behalf by a third party) is governed by this License. I fail to see how a person having access to only the Produced Work (that would be, for instance, a user of an online mapping service using OSM data), could be bound by the ODbL. As long as he or she does not reverse engineer on Your behalf, it seems such reverse engineering would be allowed. Agreed. I am awaiting an explanation of this one from someone 'on the inside' of the legal negotiations on this one. I fail to see how one can insist on any terms on a Produced Work that is released as PD and I thought this was one of more important findings from the last time we reviewed the license (the previous version) and this was the reason I suggested that one would have to put license conditions on Produced Works. I am not aware of any comment from the 'inside' except for the legal council comments to Use Case 1 which confirms the ambiguity saying The ODbL imposes no license restrictions on the Produced Works, although it does restrict reverse engineering the Produced Work in order to re-create the Database and place it under a different license. Ihmo, If this consultation is going to be meaningful we really do need some authoritative voices from within the Foundation / License Team on the matter Can anyone hear us?.. Peter - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: CC-BY-SA says: You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan). slightly provocative Could we ask CC to declare that the new fabulous ODbL, after due revision and comments by the community, can be considered a Creative Commons iCommons licence for the purposes of the above - in much the same way as FSF permitted migration from GFDL to CC-BY-SA? /slightly provocative It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen. More importantly the Factual Information License, which is what contributors will actually be signing up to, is totally unlike CC-BY-SA in every respect. 80n cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260709.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
80n wrote: It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen. It's a share-alike licence with some attribution provision - I'd say that, in fact, the two licences have pretty much the same intent. It's just that one works for data and the other doesn't. Two incompatible licences with the same intent is broadly why FSF agreed to facilitate Wikipedia's migration to CC-BY-SA, too. More importantly the Factual Information License, which is what contributors will actually be signing up to, is totally unlike CC-BY-SA in every respect. Right - so is the proposal that contributors actually sign up to FIL? There's been some uncertainty over that in the past. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260883.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen. It's a share-alike licence with some attribution provision - I'd say that, in fact, the two licences have pretty much the same intent. It's just that one works for data and the other doesn't. It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one. As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be compatible. It does have an attribution clause but it is different from the CC one. The attribution is not to the original author. Again fewer rights for the contributor. Two incompatible licences with the same intent is broadly why FSF agreed to facilitate Wikipedia's migration to CC-BY-SA, too. More importantly the Factual Information License, which is what contributors will actually be signing up to, is totally unlike CC-BY-SA in every respect. Right - so is the proposal that contributors actually sign up to FIL? There's been some uncertainty over that in the past. Database rights only exist for collections. A single person's contribution may not, on its own, be a database. The only proposal I've seen, and it appears to be a bit of an afterthought, is that contributors assign away *all* their rights by agreeing to FIL. I wonder if we are all discussing the wrong license? The FIL seems to be a much more important consideration for contributors than the ODbL. 80n cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260883.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
80n wrote: It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one. As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be compatible. In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is different from CC-BY-SA's, yet the relicensing happened. The point is that compatible can actually be decided by CC themselves. This thing about ODbL giving the user fewer rights is an absolute canard (quack). ODbL is not weaker copyleft than CC-BY-SA, it's simply expressed in a way that is relevant to data. It provides the user with protection in jurisdictions where copyright may not apply to data: CC-BY-SA doesn't. It requires the producer of a derivative to publish the source: CC-BY-SA doesn't. Against this, ODbL clearly defines where the boundaries of sharealike lie in relation to data. In some particular cases this could be viewed as fewer rights. I actually don't see it that way. CC-BY-SA's application to data is so unclear that the user effectively abrogates their rights in favour of the guys with the best lawyers, who can pay to have it interpreted their way. That isn't, by any stretch, more rights than ODbL - unless you're Google. It does have an attribution clause but it is different from the CC one. The attribution is not to the original author. Again fewer rights for the contributor. Again, that's not true. ODbL simply says in 4.2c that you must c. Keep intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer to this Licence. That provides attribution to the copyright/db right holder, i.e. the original author. [...] Database rights only exist for collections. A single person's contribution may not, on its own, be a database. That's definitely not true. A single person's contribution may certainly be a database. The EU database right legislation makes no requirement for multiple authorship and neither does ODbL. The only proposal I've seen, and it appears to be a bit of an afterthought, is that contributors assign away *all* their rights by agreeing to FIL. I wonder if we are all discussing the wrong license? The FIL seems to be a much more important consideration for contributors than the ODbL. I definitely agree (yay) that the ODbL/FIL relationship needs much more discussion than it's had to date. I believe Jordan's original intent (but he can say this much better than me, and contradict me if necessary) was that users' contributions could individually be licensed under ODbL. Your contributions would be ODbL. My contributions would be ODbL. OSM would aggregate them into one big ODbL database. The multiple-attribution question is answered either by a location (such as a relevant directory) where a user would be likely to look for it (4.2d) being www.openstreetmap.org - or by users agreeing, as a condition of contributing to OSM, that they choose not to place any copyright or database right _notices_ on their contribution other than a reference to ODbL. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22261200.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one. As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be compatible. In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is different from CC-BY-SA's, yet the relicensing happened. The point is that compatible can actually be decided by CC themselves. This thing about ODbL giving the user fewer rights is an absolute canard (quack). ODbL is not weaker copyleft than CC-BY-SA, it's simply expressed in a way that is relevant to data. It provides the user with protection in jurisdictions where copyright may not apply to data: CC-BY-SA doesn't. It requires the producer of a derivative to publish the source: CC-BY-SA doesn't. I agree that ODbL does provide some additional rights, but it also removes some rights and those are the ones that are are important to consider in the context of an automatic relicensing. Against this, ODbL clearly defines where the boundaries of sharealike lie in relation to data. In some particular cases this could be viewed as fewer rights. Indeed it is exactly this case I had in mind, where the license gives the contributor fewer rights. It creates a class of derivative works, called Produced Works, that are not share alike. I actually don't see it that way. CC-BY-SA's application to data is so unclear that the user effectively abrogates their rights in favour of the guys with the best lawyers, who can pay to have it interpreted their way. That isn't, by any stretch, more rights than ODbL - unless you're Google. It does have an attribution clause but it is different from the CC one. The attribution is not to the original author. Again fewer rights for the contributor. Again, that's not true. ODbL simply says in 4.2c that you must c. Keep intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer to this Licence. That provides attribution to the copyright/db right holder, i.e. the original author. The attribution is to the owner of the database, not the author of the work. There is no requirement in ODbL to provide attribution to the authors of the database's content. Indeed the ODbL asserts that it provides no protection over any of the content, just on the database as a collective whole. It makes the provision for the database content to be protected by some other mechanism, such as copyright, but we see that the proposed FIL license doesn't provide that protection. [...] Database rights only exist for collections. A single person's contribution may not, on its own, be a database. That's definitely not true. A single person's contribution may certainly be a database. The EU database right legislation makes no requirement for multiple authorship and neither does ODbL. Let me clarify. The database right applies to a collection of facts. An individual contribution may not qualify as a database if it is not a significant collection of facts, not because it is just one person. Most individual contributions will be insufficient *on their own* to constitute a database. If someone were to spend a few weeks mapping a town and then contribute that town in one shot then that may be a database and so could be submitted to OSM under an ODbL license. But I don't think we want to encourage that kind of behaviour. The average contribution, a single editing session with JOSM or Potlatch, would not constitute a database. The only proposal I've seen, and it appears to be a bit of an afterthought, is that contributors assign away *all* their rights by agreeing to FIL. I wonder if we are all discussing the wrong license? The FIL seems to be a much more important consideration for contributors than the ODbL. I definitely agree (yay) that the ODbL/FIL relationship needs much more discussion than it's had to date. I believe Jordan's original intent (but he can say this much better than me, and contradict me if necessary) was that users' contributions could individually be licensed under ODbL. If that were the case then the FIL license would not be necessary. Your contributions would be ODbL. My contributions would be ODbL. OSM would aggregate them into one big ODbL database. The multiple-attribution question is answered either by a location (such as a relevant directory) where a user would be likely to look for it (4.2d) being www.openstreetmap.org - or by users agreeing, as a condition of contributing to OSM, that they choose not to place any copyright or database right _notices_ on their contribution other than a reference to ODbL. Attribution to individuals is really really important to many contributors. They give their time and effort, attribution is the *only* reward for these people. They want to be able to say I did that. cheers Richard -- View this message in context:
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
80n, Indeed it is exactly this case I had in mind, where the license gives the contributor fewer rights. It creates a class of derivative works, called Produced Works, that are not share alike. In my opinion, OSM's value is almost entirely in its being a database. If OSM were not a database, then any meaningful use of OSM I could think of would first require converting it into one! A license that protects this core capacity and makes sure that OSM data, when published/used/whatever as a database, remains free, does IMHO indeed capture the essential bit without wasting energy on the fringes. You are right in saying that a Produced Work under ODbL does not carry the same restrictions as many believe it now has under CC-BY-SA, but I fail to see the use of implementing such restrictions. In my eyes, there is nothing worth protecting in a Produced Work when our data has lost its essential capability of being accessed as a database. And the essential capability of database-ness is protected, as Richard pointed out, even if the data should be conveyed by means of a Produced Work. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
Hi Richard Fairhurst wrote: FWIW, I do think that the ODbL Produced Work provisions _may_ need rewording. There seems to be a myth around here that a Produced Work can be public domain. Clearly it can't - not in the traditional sense of PD - because of 4.7 (the Reverse Engineering provision that dictates that the data is still copyleft). If there is any restriction on a work, it isn't PD. I always thought that the reverse engineering provision would apply automatically through the database directive, so even if we allowed a Produced Work to be PD then reassembling them into a database would still make that database protected, but this was perhaps seen too much through European eyes. Sadly, this makes it impossible to create a derived product from OSM-old and OSM-new because it could not be CC-BY-SA with that added restriction. So my before-after slippy map would have to be layered application. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
Very roughly (I'm generalising here), in both cases, Derivatives refer = to a situation where the entire result is copyleft, Collectives refer to something where only part of it is.=20 A collective work includes the untransformed work. A derivative work adapts it in some way. One can claim copyright on either (IIRC), but as a pragmatic move alternative licences tend to ignore collective works. Produced Works are a subclass of the latter, not a new class at all. The data component is still copyleft, a= nd a stronger copyleft than CC-BY-SA gives, but other independently sourced components may not be. Is this to handle the way people wish layers to work? - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
Hi, Gustav Foseid wrote: The database directive does not stop you from making a geographic database, rendering it as a map and then releasing it under something like CC0. I am a bit unsure what kind of restriction the database directive could possibly have placed on that map. Not on the map per se, but if you use the map to re-create the original database then - at least that's what I was thinking! - you are not using your own database but you are (again) using the database compiled by the original owner, so you need his permission to use it. This is - I thought - absolutely independent of the channel through which you received the original database. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
CC-BY-SA says: You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Japan). slightly provocative Could we ask CC to declare that the new fabulous ODbL, after due revision and comments by the community, can be considered a Creative Commons iCommons licence for the purposes of the above - in much the same way as FSF permitted migration from GFDL to CC-BY-SA? /slightly provocative cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22260709.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
Hi, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Could we ask CC to declare that the new fabulous ODbL, after due revision and comments by the community, can be considered a Creative Commons iCommons licence No, you'd never get Apple to agree. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: Indeed it is exactly this case I had in mind, where the license gives the contributor fewer rights. It creates a class of derivative works, called Produced Works, that are not share alike. No. This is really, really important. No. CC-BY-SA does not have a class of derivative works that are not share alike. ODbL does. Under ODbL the share alike clause does not apply to any derivative works (except derived databases). This is clearly *less* restrictive than CC-BY-SA. We are asking people to agree to a weaker license in this particular respect. The concept of a Produced Work is not ODbL magically exempting more works from copyleft. Produced Works is simply ODbL's effort to _define_ something that exists in all copyleft licences. It isn't a new class of restriction. Yes it is. CC-BY-SA does not exempt any derived work from share alike. ODbL does. * CC-BY-SA uses two terms to describe how work uses the original: Derivative Work and Collective Work. * ODbL uses three terms: Derivative Database, Produced Work and Collective Database. Very roughly (I'm generalising here), in both cases, Derivatives refer to a situation where the entire result is copyleft, Collectives refer to something where only part of it is. Produced Works are a subclass of the latter, not a new class at all. The data component is still copyleft, and a stronger copyleft than CC-BY-SA gives, but other independently sourced components may not be. We have this at the moment. Think of CloudMade's* routing application. Its raison d'etre is OSM data, and anything derived from that is theoretically copyleft (not, ahem, that CC-BY-SA requires it to be contributed back). But no-one is suggesting that CloudMade have to release their code under CC-BY-SA. The GPL is similar. If you compile a program with GCC, the binary contains all the optimisations that are probably the most creative aspect of GCC, so in moral terms it could be considered a derivative. But no-one's suggesting your code therefore has to be GPLed. ODbL just uses a new term to help firm up the boundaries. The fact we're still arguing five years on (cf flosm.de) about what's derivative and collective when CC-BY-SA is applied to data shows how better terminology is desperately needed. FWIW, I do think that the ODbL Produced Work provisions _may_ need rewording. There seems to be a myth around here that a Produced Work can be public domain. Clearly it can't - not in the traditional sense of PD - because of 4.7 (the Reverse Engineering provision that dictates that the data is still copyleft). If there is any restriction on a work, it isn't PD. This is perhaps not apparent and could do with hardening up. I agree that a Produced Work is not PD. Strictly it's licensed as an ODbL Produced Work, but as you say it's very hard to figure out what rights such a work has just from trying to read the ODbL. Redrafting is required to make this part of the license usable. The attribution is to the owner of the database, not the author of the work. There is no requirement in ODbL to provide attribution to the authors of the database's content. Indeed the ODbL asserts that it provides no protection over any of the content, just on the database as a collective whole. It makes the provision for the database content to be protected by some other mechanism, such as copyright, but we see that the proposed FIL license doesn't provide that protection. Again, this hinges on whether FIL _is_ what's proposed. I don't believe that was Jordan's intention. As I understand it Jordan is not our lawyer and cannot advise us on whether or not we should use the FIL. According to Grant's email of Feb 27th OSMF have been advised by Clark Asay of Wilson Sonsini to use the FIL. Grant can you publish a copy of that advice so that we can see exactly what was said please? The wiki is contradictory: in one place it says Sign up page now states you agree to license your changes under both CCBYSA and also ODbL. but in another when you upload your individual contributions, you agree to licence them under the Factual Info Licence. You're on the OSMF board, you can tell us. :) The FIL has never been discussed by the OSMF board. I know no more about it than you. For what it's worth, I distinctly remember Jordan telling me in Reading that he expected individual users to license their contributions under ODbL; and though in my heart of hearts I'm a PD person and prefer things like the FIL, I too think that ODbL is pragmatically what OSM should be adopting here. [...] Database rights only exist for collections. A single person's contribution may not, on its own, be a database. [...] Let me clarify. The database right applies to a collection of facts. An individual contribution may not qualify as a database if it
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
80n wrote: No. CC-BY-SA does not have a class of derivative works that are not share alike. ODbL does. No it doesn't, that's the entire point of what I said. (Is this the five-minute argument or the full half-hour?) This is what 4.7 in ODbL is all about. The data is still protected, if that's the kind of language you like, by share-alike at all times. As I understand it Jordan is not our lawyer and cannot advise us on whether or not we should use the FIL. So now I am utterly confused. Some people called Wilson Sonsini have advised us to use ODbL in a manner which is not, AIUI, the manner recommended by the licence co-author, who one would presume understands these things. And here I am debating with an OSMF board member who appears to be arguing _against_ the licence being recommended by OSMF. What on earth is going on? Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22262758.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A Creative Commons iCommons license
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: 80n wrote: No. CC-BY-SA does not have a class of derivative works that are not share alike. ODbL does. No it doesn't, that's the entire point of what I said. (Is this the five-minute argument or the full half-hour?) This is what 4.7 in ODbL is all about. The data is still protected, if that's the kind of language you like, by share-alike at all times. Let's recap. This thread started with your question about whether it would be feasible to just ask CC to agree that ODbL was a compatible license and avoid all the trouble of having to bother contributors with lots of boring legal stuff. I replied by suggesting that the ODbL license is not compatible and in some cases removes rights that the contributor currently has. So let's stay focussed not on the additional protections that ODbL offers, but on those rights that it takes away. If I create a nice rendering of some OSM data under the current license it is a derivative work that is covered by CC and both the share-alike and attribution clauses explicitly apply to it. If I create the same nice rendering under the ODbL then it is classed as a Produced Work. A produced work is subject to attribution (4.3) but is not subject to share alike (4.5b). Since share alike is a key part of the CC-BY-SA license this is a clear example of a case where a contributors rights are less in the ODbL than in CC-BY-SA. That's why it would be very unlikely that CC would agree to class ODbL as a compatible license. Because it isn't compatible. As I understand it Jordan is not our lawyer and cannot advise us on whether or not we should use the FIL. So now I am utterly confused. Some people called Wilson Sonsini have advised us to use ODbL in a manner which is not, AIUI, the manner recommended by the licence co-author, who one would presume understands these things. Well Jordan is the author of the FIL and we can assume he did it for a reason. It is published adjacent to the ODbL license on a web-site that is managed by Jordan, so I think there are some clues there. It's quite possible that Jordan had a different opinion a year ago when all this kicked off. And here I am debating with an OSMF board member who appears to be arguing _against_ the licence being recommended by OSMF. What on earth is going on? I'm neither argueing for or against the license. I'm engaging in a conversation that I hope will help me, and others, to better understand the implications of the new license. Most board members have only recently seen a copy of the license so they have no more knowledge about it than anyone else. We will be making a decision on whether to recommend it to OSMF membership at our board meeting on March 31st and I'm sure that all the board members will be paying close attention to the discussions on these various forums between now and then. I doubt any board member would put their name to the license without careful consideration. And for the record, I haven't spent enough time with the license yet to know which way I might go on it. 80n Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22262758.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
