Re: choosing a license: You took the words right out of my mouth :) I was considering using the contributor name (which is on every tag already right?) to work out the license.. but its probably nicer your way.
-J On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:25 AM, Sunburned Surveyor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have no problem avoiding the moral rights quagmire. I think > simplicity is one of the reasons to move to PD in the first place. > > I don't think it would be a problem to use the wikipedia public domain > license now, and then consider a future move to something like the CC > Zero. > > I would strongly recommend we do one thing that OSM hasn't done. That > is require a tag for each feature that indicates the license the > feature was released under. I know it's all PD, but this would allow > us to "sort" and catagorize the data in the event of future legal > interpretations or developments. I'd rather have a simple license tag > then get to a point down the road where a large portion of the data > has a cloud over its use because of some legal decision. > > The Sunburned Surveyor > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Gustav Foseid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Rob Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> The Wikipedia version is the best current PD Dedication but I really >>> would recommend waiting on CC Zero. >> >> CC Zero explicitly mentions database rights, which I think is a good thing, >> but I would be ahppy with the Wikipedia dedication as well. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Gustav >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk