2010/8/10 Anthony <o...@inbox.org>: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Elena of Valhalla > <elena.valha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/10/10, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Peter Körner <osm-li...@mazdermind.de> >>> wrote: >>>> [...] CC-BY-SA can't be used for databases. >>> >>> That's certainly trivially incorrect. >>> >>> The database that holds Wikipedia is a database, for instance. >> >> And it's not under CC-BY-SA per se, it's a collection of creative >> works (the articles) that are under CC-BY-SA > > So you're agreeing with the statement that CC-BY-SA can't be used for > databases? Okay, whatever. >
This is going too many times around. For summary, there are: 1) People who are imported bunches of data from thirty party sources and owners those sources where fine with SA and/or Attribution clauses, or have licensed data under CC-BY-SA and are mostly easily reachable to relicense data to ODbL. These pople DON'T OPPOSE ODbL, but they DO OPPOSE CT, as it has nasty wording about "further re-licensing", which can make promises to keep data attributed and shared alike impossible. As far we know, there are several official complains made to LWG and we hope this will be fixed. p.s. I'm and several very loud people in this list in this group :) 2) There are people who oppose OdBL in general, as they are confused OR don't see problems with CC-BY-SA. Unfortunately, facts plus copyright law are in grey area, and it is very hard to say easily what works and what not. But from other side, LWG and OSMF have listened to complains and have done their homework on ODbL. So while it is leap of faith, it could be good one. For this group it would probably better scenario is a fork, as it seems majority of OSM contributors accept move to ODbL. Please take into account, that first group is rather big. We are not looking to ignore that CC-BY-SA is on shaky grounds, we want to use ODbL, but we want to be sure about future - therefore we are asking to fix wording of CT so we can be sure OSM in the future will be licensed using SA (we don't mind limited form of this in ODbL) and SA. I really hope LWG will soon make decision about re-licensing clauses in CT so we can move forward. Cheers, and have a nice day, Peter. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
