My point was, I thought there are many more open licenses than listed in the picture. On Sep 3, 2012 10:47 AM, "Paul Norman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Non-commercial only licenses discriminate against fields of endeavor and > are definitely not open. See 6 of http://opensource.org/docs/osd or 8 of > http://opendefinition.org/okd/. No derivative licenses are also not open > – you can’t modify the data.**** > > ** ** > > Another explanation is > http://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions#Restrictions_which_are_not_permissible. > CC doesn’t claim that any NC or ND license is open either.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Pavel Melnikov [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Sunday, September 02, 2012 8:31 PM > *To:* Simone Aliprandi > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [OSM-talk] opendata diagram**** > > ** ** > > Forgive my incompetence, but what about other open licenses? Say, > CC-non-commercial, Cc-no-derivatives, and a whole bunch of combinations of > by, sa, nc, nd? Em you consider them not-open? > I'm sure there are more examples, I only know about cc ones.**** > > On Sep 3, 2012 3:04 AM, "Simone Aliprandi" <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > I realized a diagram including all the most important opendata > licenses that are now available, and classifying them according to > their legal effects (attribution and share-alike, attribution only, > public domain). I hope this work can be useful to better understand > the actual situation of geodata (open)licensing: > http://aliprandi.blogspot.it/2012/05/opendata-graph.html > Bye, > -- > Simone Aliprandi - http://www.aliprandi.org > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk**** >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
