Hi, Simon Ward wrote: > Your argument would also suggest that there is no need for the factual > licence.
Yes there is; it would protect users who extract a non-substantial amount of data against any claims from anybody. > This comes down to PD vs permissive vs share-alike, and I’ve seen this > be discussed to bits in the past. Yes, and the ODBL/Factual combo is a good compromise in that it is basically an PD for non-substantial things and basically an attribution-only license for "experiences" created from OSM data; it only has full share-alike for the bits that are of interest to us: the data. Remember that we're a project creating a free world map, not a project creating a free world. In my eyes what you're proposing would not even work. The whole idea behind the new license is that if you make some kind of artistic work or so based on OSM data, you can have full copyright with any license you want on the resulting work, you only have to share-alike the data base behind it. I thought that there was a consensus that this is what we want: Let the T-Shirt designer have ownership of his OSM-based T-Shirt design, as long as we get the data improvements he made to achieve this. Now if you start opening up the possibility that individual data items might themselves be under a share-alike license, how can the T-Shirt designer own his creative work? He would have to make the T-Shirt design share-alike just as it is now. That basically breaks everything that is good about the new license. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
