Simon Poole <simon <at> poole.ch> writes: >>Are there any problems with CC-BY-SA 2.0 relating specifically to the >>contribution of content by individual mappers to the OSMF servers?
>Well we could discuss if in general CC-by-SA 2.0 is at all suitable as >a replacement for contributor terms, but naturally for example the "sui >generis" database rights are one of the problematic issues (being the >most likely IPR that large contributors could own). I believe that the statement "you agree that your contributions can be distributed under CC-BY-SA 2.0" should cover it, as it doesn't specifically refer to database right or copyright or any other rights. The 2.0 licence does not mention database right by name, but it does automatically allow distribution under 3.0, which does. >>Other collaborative projects such as Wikipedia must face the same issues. >And we know that they "cheated" .... Yes, and that is the best way to do it! If the OSMF/Open Data Commons people were able to work together with CC (and admittedly the 'Science Commons' statement about not using copyleft for scientific data muddied the waters) to put in an upgrade clause between CC-BY-SA and ODbL, all the difficulties would pretty much vanish into thin air. >for example Wikipedia doesn't really distribute its data for use >in other projects (commercial or other) and in so far doesn't have as >large responsibility towards downstream data users as OSM has. Wikipedia in my opinion took much better care of downstream users than OSMF is planning to. They continued to licence under the old licence and the new one, at the user's option. That means that no downstream user who was using Wikipedia before the changeover got cut off. -- Ed Avis <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
