Hi, Anthony wrote: > Actually, I was planning on doing exactly this with a map of my office > on the back of my business card. I'm not about to start handing out CDs > along with my business cards.
I think you are only required to hand out the database on which your rendering is based. And it doesn't even have to be the database at the time; you can hand out a current version. And you don't even have to hand it out fully, it is enough to hand out a diff to the original data if that is still available. So if you took OSM data and didn't change it (which I think is likely), then your diff is empty, and all you have to do is point people to planet.openstreetmap.org if anyone should ever ask you for the data. > The other big problem is that I just don't have the time or money to > figure out *exactly* what the ODbL means. And Open Data Commons is just > not anyone I've ever heard of (and Creative Commons, who *is* someone > I've heard of, and respect the legal opinion of, has torn apart the ODbL). I wouldn't exactly say "torn apart". In fact, one of the biggest problem that they had with ODbL was that Open Data Commons offered this license as a general share-alike license suitable for data, and by doing so was challenging the Creative Commons quasi-hegemony in the department of open licensing. In this message: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002315.html John Wilbanks of Science Commons writes, "If this were the "Open Street Map License" and not the "Open Database License" it's unlikely we would have such a strong opinion." And in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002318.html the same guy says: "Your community cares more about reciprocity than interoperability. That's fine and dandy for you. But you're proposing to promote your solution, a complex one engineered and tuned for you, as something that is a generic solution *without doing the research* as to how it will work in generic situations. That's not fine and dandy." I think he's perfectly right; ODbL was very much influenced by OSM, much as any product will be influenced by the first large user. But again, they didn't really "tear apart" ODbL, they were just unhappy about the prospect of more people in science and education using this license because that would reduce interoperability. Which is undoubtedly true; no share-alike license can ever be as interoperable as CC0 or PD. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
