On Dec 6, 2009, at 1:48 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > I also tend to side with Creative Commons. It is not very wise of ODbL > proponents to claim that CC say that CC-BY-SA doesn't work for data > without also admitting that CC recommend CC0 for data.
Personally I don't because the former is a legal opinion and the latter is a moral crusade opinion. > > Matt Amos wrote: >> i have listened to what they have to say, and it makes perfect sense. >> they recognise that databases like OSM's don't have much basis for >> protection in copyright law, so they correctly deduce that there are >> two options: >> >> 1) drop requirements enforced by copyright law. this results in a >> "PD-like" license, to whit: CC0. >> 2) enforce requirements by law other than copyright law. this results >> in a database rights/contract license, to whit: ODbL. >> >> creative commons decided, as a policy, that option (1) was preferable, >> as it places fewer restrictions on the use of the data. however, it >> drops the share-alike and attribution requirements. they clearly felt >> that this would provide the best benefit to the scientific community. > > This "as a policy" is something that Steve claims as well, implying that > rather than working things out, they just decreed something. But I don't > think this does them justice Not even if John Wilbanks admitted it? Yours &c. Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
