On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:20:54AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Well I think the key problem with the current license is that we don't > adhere to it ourselves, and that it is quite unclear how the license > is to be applied in many cases. (Just one example of many: The derived > work vs. collected work question; we have the informal agreement > within the community that displaying OSM and non-OSM tiles in a > layered slippy map makes a collected work, not a derived work. But > that's not at all clear from the license. Insecurities like that keep > users away and serve to make us basically CC-BY-SA-NC as any > commercial entity with something to lose will shy away from using > OSM.)
Strange then that the position of Creative Commons is that there is no effective copyright... If it is such a clear cut case as Creative Commons maintains, then where do the insecurities come from? (This is not a question actually directed to you, but more to the guy from CC that came on the list claiming a no-copyright) cu bart _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk