On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 02:34:48AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > How will the potential > user know whether the data you entered is just fact, or the result of a > complex approximation that took you a day's work?
The short answer is the user doesn’t; they treat the data as if it was to be shared and generally be nice people. They _could_ spend lots of money involving their lawyers to decide whether some small chunks of data that don’t amount to a sizable proportion of the database are usable and the licence does not apply, or they could comply with the licence. This isn’t different to how CC-by-sa is being taken to apply to the database _and_ contents (where people find it usable). CC-by-sa doesn’t make the distinctions we need for the data especially with respect to derived works. The factual share-alike licence should still make this clear, and is more in the spirit with the original licensing. Your argument would also suggest that there is no need for the factual licence. As far as I understand, it simply makes the data free where it has the power to do so. Where it doesn’t, it banks on the data being free to copy in that jurisdiction anyway. A share-alike licence would only be similar: Make the data free and and ensure that further redistribution is free where it has the power to do so. This comes down to PD vs permissive vs share-alike, and I’ve seen this be discussed to bits in the past. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk