Hi, Lutz Horn wrote: >> ODbL tries to reduce this problem by exempting "produced works" from the >> share-alike effect, and this is a good thing, but still there will be >> many use cases adversely affected by the remaining share-alike for data. > > Could you please explain why you consider this influence a problem?
This influence is a problem because it drastically increases the price exacted from the user. It's like saying "anything compiled with gcc should be GPL licensed". It is of course anyone's right to demand that, but it is in my view an excessive demand that will marginalise the tool in question; and I consider OSM a tool. The point I was making is that while modifying GPL licensed software or re-mixing CC-BY-SA licensed creative works is very much a specialist activity that only a fraction of users will pursue, in the domain of geodata analysing and remixing/recombining the data is a standard activity. This leads me to conclude that geodata share-alike cannot be compared with, say, GPL. Geodata share-alike has a much greater impact. > Actually I consider it a good thing. SA must apply for *both* data and > produced work. Maybe we should put OSM in the public domain, then you could simply take it and add any license you fancy, e.g. CC-BY-SA-NC-and-you-have- to-dance-around-a-dead-tree-at-full-moon-if-you-want-to-use-this-data. Bye Frederik _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
