I'd like to clarify the reason for two (2) licenses. The FIL is being considered for individual "atoms" of data, while the ODbL is being considered for major chunks of the database?
Is this correct? Would it be helpful to: [1] Determine what is an "atom" that the FIL would apply to. [2] Determine what is a "major chunk" that the ODbL would apply to. I think this distinction is going to become important. Also, it seems the discussion would indicate that the FIL would only be needed in certain jurisdictions. Would it be helpful to clarify which jurisdictions would require the FIL to operate OSM as desired? (Or maybe it would be easier to list the jurisdictions in which we know the FIL would not be necessary.) It seems to me we often try to speak about different jurisdictions in general, when it might be helpful to discuss legal questions with specific jurisdictions in mind. The Sunburned Surveyor On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Ulf Möller <use...@ulfm.de> wrote: > 80n schrieb: > >> As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It was >> grabbed at the last minute from here > > It doesn't look like it has been reviewed thoroughly (and the co-ment > page seem to be password protected.) > > The requirement to include a copy of the license pretty much defeats the > ODbL clause according to which a hyperlink is sufficient for a Produced > Work. So an image description would read "This image contains > information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the > Open Database Licence (ODbL)", followed by the 760 word Factual > Information License. That would sort of work on a Wikipedia image > description page, but a newspaper would probably rather use the space to > print two or three other stories. > > The license should allow modification for any purpose, but they only > mention "modifying the Work as may be technically necessary to use it in > a different mode or format". > > The disclaimer is different from the ODbL one. Either the ODbL > disclaimer is unnecessarily verbose, or something is missing in this one. > > Also the license once uses "Database" where it should say "Work", and > capitalization for defined words is used inconsistently. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
