On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The new license that is being discussed will probably address this > > problem by trying to constrain the viral aspect to the data or the > > database, and granting you more freedom to exercise rights on a > > non-database derived product. > > Since this will displease everyone equally I suppose it amounts to a > compromise. ;-) >
As I see it, there's three problems with the current license: - It is never defined what constitutes a 'derived work' and a 'collaborative work'. People who try to be honest will stay away from OSM because they don't want to offend / don't want to be sued. People who want to be a jerk about the whole thing will use the data anyway. Shit for honest folk, good for 'bad guys'; whoever they are - There are some applications I just can't write with OSM. Particularly, I can't write any application which interacts in a nontrivial way with proprietry data. At least, not without asking permission from every single contributor. - Any user of the maps must attribute _every contributor_. Thats just not feasable for some usage scenarios. (And nobody cares - but still, without attributing everyone you're opening the door to lawsuits). As I understand it, the new license fixes 1. and maybe 3. IMO, if we're going to go through the rigmaroll of changing licenses anyway, lets try and fix everything. -J > - Rob. > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
