I'm happy with wikipedia PD as well. The Sunburned Surveyor
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Joseph Gentle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm happy with that. Thankyou :) > > -J > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Kari Pihkala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I counted the votes for PD "license" so far. Sorry, if I have missed >> anyone!! >> >> Jordan S Hatcher: PDDL >> Joseph Gentle: Wikipedia PD / PDDL >> Nic Roets: Wikipedia PD >> Sebastian Spaeth: Wikipedia PD >> Rob Myers: CC Zero (Wikipedia PD) >> Gustav Foseid: CC Zero / Wikipedia PD >> >> According to this, Wikipedia style public domain dedication statement wins. >> CC Zero is not finished, and therefore cannot be used now. So Wikipedia PD >> it is?? Is this decision informal enough?? :) >> >> PDDL: >> http://www.opendatacommons.org/odc-public-domain-dedication-and-licence/ >> CC Zero: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCZero >> Wikipedia PD: "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into >> the >> public domain. This applies worldwide.In case this is not legally possible: >> I grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any >> conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." >> >> - Kari >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Kari Pihkala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Exactly. I wouldn't like to see nodes with a license tag. Once again, it >>> over-complicates things. Or do you want people asking, which PD data can >>> they use and which they cannot?? >>> >>> Importing PD data (such as TIGER) into OSM/PD isn't a problem. PD is PD. >>> >>> I vote for the Wikipedia PD style of public domain for OSM/PD. Simply >>> because it is simple. >>> >>> Public Domain Dedication And License looks too complicated - I think it >>> will scare people off. CC Zero is not finished. Once it is finished, I don't >>> see any reasons why we couldn't later switch to CC Zero, if it turns out to >>> be good. >>> >>> - Kari >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:39 AM, Simon Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:17:46AM +1100, Joseph Gentle wrote: >>>> > We won't have all the data under one license though. Never will if >>>> > we're incorporating TIGER data and data from other governments. >>>> >>>> Exactly, the point to keep in mind here is that you don't relicense >>>> stuff (at least not without much paperwork), you incorporate stuff that >>>> has a licence compatible with yours. In much GPL software, PD and MIT >>>> is acceptable, but the BSD licence with advertising clause isn't because >>>> it adds another incompatible restriction (the advertising clause). With >>>> OSM data it is similar: OSM can import TIGER data because it's PD, but >>>> can not incorporate data from Ordnance Survey that at first glance seems >>>> free but also restricts commercial use (unless licenced for many £). >>>> >>>> Simon >>>> -- >>>> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a >>>> simple system that works.—John Gall >>>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >>>> >>>> iEYEARECAAYFAkj+aC0ACgkQj6/6lS/XEIp+nwCeMjkQRU9qTcNNVaIWDYTDalRR >>>> 1cwAmwXFNT0lp/jPVbHdEi7x2jBYqrb6 >>>> =Ibli >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
