> > I feel that the above question should never appear in a call for > comments: no one person can speak for everyone else. It's very much > an "anyone feel like being shouted at?" question. >
I hope we can avoid shouting:) I do think it is important that we discuss issues now rather than at the end of the process when it will be too late to change the direction. To be clear I am aiming to help create a good share-alike licence. I fully respect the argument for PD but that is a separate issue and not directly related to trying to get a candidate share-alike licence together. The comments I am looking for at the moment are ones to make the share-alike licence a good share-alike licence. > However, I'll stick my neck out: I don't agree with the list in point > 1)2. which seems to permit non-machine-readable changesets, while not > permitting a CD in the box with a hardware device containing the > derived dataset. Those two cases should be the other way around: > allow accompanying datasets outside the end-user experience; and forbid > non-machine-readable changesets if the original dataset is > machine-readable. > I have updated the wording. Is it any better? I have made is clearer that the re-useable dataset can be provided within the product, together with the product or at a URL (so long as the URL remains valid for the appropriate amount of time) > > Are there any ways we could make it stronger and better? > > 1) "should be also made available" is unclear and clunky - perhaps > "should be available" is sufficient? Similarly all other "made > available"s. > I have updated the wording as suggested. > 2) What is "similar"? Is this a backdoor? > The concept of similar comes from the Debian licence and also appears in the ODBL licence. It is important that the licence can be updated without asking everyone for permission again, but it is unclear at present who would do that and how. The phrase 'or similar' is something that the legal boys will have to think about. I notice that SteveC mentions this issue in his email. In the mean time I have added 'or similar' to a place where it should appear for consistency and a note saying the issue needs attention. > 3)b) "licence" should be "license" - even in English English, the verb > has a s. Use of "protects" is ambiguous and inappropriate - "covers"? > Fixed! > 5) Whose "fair-use" rules? The USA's? The pretty-minor UK ones? > I have noted your point at the appropriate location. > > If so can we hear about > > the issues in the next few days so we can try to accommodate them? > > See above. > Thanks Peter > I have not time to review the use cases at this point. Sorry. > -- > MJ Ray (slef) > Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small > worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ > (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
