On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Matt Amos <[email protected]> wrote:
> CC BY-SA imposes requirements *using* copyright law. No it doesn't. Copyright law imposes requirements. CC-BY-SA provides a waiver to some of those requirements. > > ODbL, on the other hand, is a standard bilateral contract. > > which still gives you *more* rights. > What right does it give me which I didn't already have? > from my reading of creative commons comments they're saying something > very different from what you seem to be saying. but maybe i'm just > misunderstanding you. > I guess so, which is why I quoted them. > The result is that the ODbL can in certain > > circumstances impose obligations and restrictions on users under a > contract > > theory, rather than based on a protection afforded by statute, common > law, > > or other recognized right. > > indeed. this is kind of the point: the US and some other jurisdictions > don't yet have a database rights law, so to enforce similar > restrictions to CC BY-SA it's necessary to use some other method. > Okay, well, that's my point. I don't want to have those restrictions imposed. Although, I don't see how they're "similar restrictions to CC-BY-SA", since you agree that CC-BY-SA doesn't enforce those restrictions. I live in the United States. I can do whatever the heck I want with the OSM database. Now you want me to agree to a contract limiting those rights. So I'll ask again: What's in it for me?
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
