On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:53, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote:
Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a
policy*.
PD-like licenses? You mean for databases of facts? Or am I
misinterpreting "PD-like"?
Not quite, their policy is that data 'should' be free. Even if say I'm
a company looking to release data under somethig viral, their response
is that I am wrong and PD like things should be my only choice.
It's pretty stupid but that's their policy.
Well, you may think Creative Commons is "stupid", but I hope others
will give them a chance and listen to what they have to say. I
think they will, considering that Creative Commons is well known and
respected, compared to Open Data Commons, who doesn't even seem to
have an article on Wikipedia.
Oh they have been involved, see legal-talk archives back and forth,
Richard probably knows when and can link.
I think the moral stance they take on PD for data is stupid not the
whole enterprise of course.
I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM
would even consider resorting to "browse-through license agreements"
in order to impose terms which go beyond that of copyright. It's
the exact oppose of what I'd expect from a site which calls itself
"open" and "free".
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
