On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alex Kwiatkowski < [email protected]> wrote:
> Which part is contradictory so a can give them a starting point. > "If you derive information from observing our PhotoMaps, and include that information in a work, you will own that work, and may distribute it to others under a Creative Commons licence." 1) "You will own that work" (implication: you can do whatever the hell you want with it) 2) "You may distribute it to others under a creative commons licence" (implication: but not other licences). If you "own" it, you can distribute as CC, or you can sell it, or you can PD it. Or you can not distribute it at all. The second statement is either totally redundant (should probably be clarified as "and may distribute that under any licence as you see fit"), or restrictive and contradicts the first one. It seems to me that the terms need to more closely define "derive information" (ie, to specifically refer to tracing streets), then completely open the "you will own that work" section. But the short term solution would be to specifically refer to OSM's licensing. Steve
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
