On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:54, Simon Poole <[email protected]> wrote: > The text in the waiver referencing the ODbL is there so that it is clear > that we are not proposing completely waiving the restrictions on DRM use > (though for produced works it does essentially amount to that, but not for > the data itself). > > Why doesn't anybody else (outside of OSM) have an issue with the terms > that we are asking to be waived? Because they simply ignore them. > > I have yet to see any data project proprietary, closed or open that > actually conveys this correctly to their users (CC BY 4.0 IMHO actually > rules out using so licensed data in closed projects). Given that the > department in question and the other distributors of data on CC BY terms > must be aware that the relevant terms are as a rule ignored, you would > think that giving a positive answer to an organisation that is so polite to > ask before using the data would just be a formality, but it seems not. > Thanks for that explanation, Simon.
Maybe the request & waiver letter's could be modified to include a "simple English" explanation of why we're asking, just like that, rather / in addition, to the current legalese, because I think that a number of the people saying no, just don't understand the question? Thanks Graeme
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
