On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Chris Browet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 14:17, Richard Weait <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Chris Browet <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > They definitely need to define that, it would help. "an OSI endorsed >> > free >> > and open license", maybe... >> >> OSI don't endorse Open Data Licenses as far as I know. Open Data >> Commons do and they even consulted with the OSM community in writing >> ODbL. > > Ok, that was probably a bad example. The point still is: What is the > definition of a "free and open license".
Personally I'd say ODbL doesn't qualify. I've contacted Angela Beesley and Benjamin Mako Hill from freedomdefined.com, and they say they have not yet evaluated the ODbL. I was, however, referred by them to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons and invited to come over to the Freedomdefined wiki to discuss it. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
