Sebastian Spaeth > thanks, I didn't know the legal list. About problems with cc licenses, I agree with most of them and I think that have a new licence can be good.
About PD users, I don't think it can be possible to use there work in public domain. The work from an author is most of time : 1 download data from osm serveur 2 make some work on the data 3 upload work The step 2 is make a derivative work from downloaded data in 1. So the new data can be used as PD only if all data from step 1 is PD. As there is no way to be sure of that, I don't think there is a way to use PD data. On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Mike Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 01:33 PM 4/05/2008, Ari Torhamo wrote: > >la, 2008-05-03 kello 17:39 -0400, Ted Mielczarek kirjoitti: > > > > >> Why else are we contributing > >> this data if not for people to *use* it? > > > >I suggest you go and present this breath taking argument to RMS, and we > >might soon get an updated, more free version of GPL. > > > >Ari > > The GPL works very well as it already allows folks to *use* software with no > restriction on what they make with that use. > > Adding something new to GPL software source code is clearly different from > using existing GPL software to do something new. That distinction is far > from clear when using collations of facts like OSM data. So a different > model is required. The PD argument is a very easy and elegant solution, but > it makes some contributors very uncomfortable. The new license being worked > on seeks to make a, hopefully, comprehensible distinction for factual data. > > Mike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
