Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons

2011-01-22 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, Anthony wrote: Strongly agree. Whether started and/or spread by CC, OSM, both, or neither, there definitely seems to be a common misconception that OSM is simply a database of facts, Well I for one still believe that OSM is aiming to be a database of facts. and that therefore what's

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons

2011-01-22 Thread Anthony
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts. Do you think they are also distancing themselves from the position that

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons

2011-01-22 Thread Anthony
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is that data should be licensed CC0, not OSM is a databae of facts. Do you think

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] LWN article on license change and Creative Commons

2011-01-22 Thread Anthony
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Personally I'm hoping for a CC-BY-SA which states explicitly that it does not cover unoriginal facts and that it only covers the expression half of the idea/expression divide. Ugh, sorry for the imprecise language (this is why I'm