On 02/04/2008, David Ebling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am I the only person observing this conversation on > the mailing list who is deeply, deeply concerned by > the notion of importing data that requires attribution > other than the standard OSM CC-by-SA? The fact that
well, the attribution they want is so close to that demanded by cc-by-sa as to have no real-world difference > whenever we display NZ we would have to display "crown > copyright" somewhere totally undermines the purpose of not necessarily - the settled upon option appears to be a link on the map page pointing to the attribution page, where all data sources are listed. the link doesn't change, nether does the text on the front page, or the attribution page > the CC-by-SA licence - to make sure people know that > the data is freely available. the two (copyright and cc-by-sa) don't have to contradict each other every user that creates data for OSM holds the copyright for that data (if you believe that facts can be copyrighted, but that's another argument...) by the act of creating it, but they release the data under a license that strips away a lot of what people associate with copyright, i.e. draconian controls on what can be done with the data later. linz are doing the same thing (and in fact had been doing for a long time before the creative commons was around), and the wording of their license is virtually identical > As an outsider to the project, I would see "crown > copyright" and immediately assume that I was not able > to do what I want with the data. It will cause > confusion because it's the same copyright notice > displayed on OS maps, even if the license is > different. > > If people see "crown copyright" I think it could also > make people less likely to contribute to OSM in the > future because it causes confusion over the idea that > OSM is mainly user-generated. > > Perhaps I just object to having to put "crown > copyright" on all the maps that show NZ because it > just seems like someone else retains ownership of OSM > data. I feel that's against the very ethos of OSM. well, the license is the overriding point here, and it says anyone can do whatever they want, as long as the source of the data is acknowledged. anyone can change, add, remove, merge, whatever and they (linz) and we (osm) won't mind. people who take the planet database and use it for something have to say where the info came from, why is us having to say we got info from linz, any different? is it because creative commons is a new generation, dot-com-era, 'freedom' promoting organisation with a touchy-feely image, and the britsh crown is somehow controlling and bad and evil? > I think it is preferable to make our own dataset of NZ > than to undermine the very idea of OSM. We've done it we're not proposing to undermine anything - anyone can still take the osm dataset and do with it as they wish, so long as they follow the (very brief) rules laid down in cc-by-sa. adding in the linz data does not change anything in that regard > for lots of other countries, and it will get done > eventually. Let's not ruin the whole project for the > sake of taking a short cut! Once we import copyrighted > data we can't go back very easily. This step shouldn't > be taken lightly. agreed, it is a big step - it does need to be discussed and analysed in great depth and of course, we can go back, if the data is labelled as being sourced from linz _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
