> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Myers > Sent: 29 September 2008 09:27 > To: Licensing and other legal discussions. > Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] An updated 'brief brief' for the new > licence > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Also, as I mentioned before, the intention of this licence initiative is > to > > produce a licence that keeps to the spirit of the original ccbysa > licence > > but works for us to protect the data, but frees up how that data is > used. > > Isn't this what the new data licence will do? >
Yes, I am only trying to summarise what we are expecting from the new proposed licence and then ensure that this is what we get! Currently people are looking at the text of the ccbysa licence and the legal text of the new licence to try to decide what is intended. This is like reading the code of a computer program to see what the program does rather than reading the spec sheet. I am only intending to help clarify what the new licence should be doing. Does that make sense? > > 2) Ensure that if people use the OSM dataset (or a Derived Database) > within > > any publically available work that they should attribute OSM in the > > resulting work appropriately for the medium, the space available and the > > relative significance of the OSM data to their final work. > > This is adware rather than copyleft and will not help the users of > such systems to use the data freely as they encounter it. This comment puzzles me. Surely this is just the expected attribution clause? I am not sure what else one should put here. I have clarified my expectations re how this is interpreted on the updated 'brief brief'. Can you come back on the list with more information if you disagree with the new version I posted this morning? > > > 3) It should allow people to do anything within reason they like with > the > > OSM dataset so long as they comply with 1) and 2). > > This is potlatch, not openness. > Again I am not clear what you mean here, I thought I was just saying that if you make any derived database available and if you attribute then you can do pretty much what you like. Again I thought this was what CC BY SA was meant to achieve. Again, can you come back on this with more information if you disagree with the new version that I posted this morning? > > [Individual contributors will be acknowledged on the OSM website but not > in > > the final end-used experience. Bulk contributors will be able to require > a > > notice to be included in the OSM database if required by prior > negotiation]. > > I'd recommend leaving out the prior negotiation part and just have > flat acknowledgement. Vanity is a terrible thing to work against. ;-) > Good point. Thanks. I agree 'negotiation' means work and possibly people changing their mind. We will be able to contain a good number of notices so there is no reason not to include all the big ones. Basically it would be a copy of the appropriate wiki page that lists these contributions. Thanks, Peter > - Rob. > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
