On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:00:17AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > (John) > > > That means I'm free to ignore any kind of share-alike you apply to > > > your data. I've got a download of the OSM data dump. I can repost > > > it, right now, as public domain. You can perhaps try to sue me - > > > though I'm pretty > (Bart) > > That is your position. But at the same time we hear about > > institutions that refrain from using OSM data because they feel they > > are unable to meet the terms of our license (attribution to all > > contributors). That is in direct contradiction with your assertion. > I don't see the contradiction; John says in another paragraph that our > license affects those who want to play by the rules (however > enforceable they may be), it just doesn't affect the bad guys. So, the > institutions you speak of are the good guys who do not want to be seen > breaching our rules.
Well, nothing affects the bad guys, even 100% enforceable copyright gets violated daily. The good guys that don't want to be seen breaking any rules, are not seen breaking any rules if what John says is true. And if by rules, you mean 'moral guidelines' instead of 'legal limits' then consider the current CC by attribution a good expression of the moral guidelines some prefer for this project. In that case we can just as well profit from the recognizability of a CC license. But all this is moot because I disagree with his initial point anyway. (Namely that the OSM database is void of copyrighteable content) cu bart _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
