Frederik Ramm <frederik <at> remote.org> writes: >Could we perhaps shred all this legalese then, be done with the license >(which is, in effect, an attempt at codifying things in a manner you and >Steve have just discounted), and instead write an one-page statement of >intent that says how we'd like our data to be used and how not, and >that's it?
Excellent idea. Or if I might make a slightly different suggestion: keep the CC-BY-SA licence because that's what we have, and it's the standard adopted by Wikipedia and other collections of free content. For the benefit of countries where a database right exists, and 'for the avoidance of doubt' as the ODbL says, add a short remark that the OSM foundation (which is the entity which has collated together all of the individual bits of mapmaking work into a giant database) will not assert its database right to stop distribution of OSM data, provided it's done under the CC-BY-SA. It is not necessary to have a big relicensing-and-deletion exercise to add this extra waiver of database rights, because everyone already agreed to let OSM distribute the data under CC-BY-SA and that's all we are doing. -- Ed Avis <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
