On 08/03/09 00:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I agree with both points, but I would like to try and be pragmatic: > Don't throw out the reverse engineering clause; just add a clause that > explicitly permits releasing Produced Works under a number of named > share-alike licenses.
I would be reluctant to name them. Assuming the data remains bound by some form of share-alike, in 50 years time, OSM or OSM derivatives is going to be the only database anyone ever uses for storing and retrieving public global mapping data. At that point, we have no clue if the FSF, the GPL or Creative Commons will still exist, or whether there will be another more popular share-alike licence used. If we can find a way of defining the key characteristics of a share-alike licence, then this might work. > I think this gives us the best mix. Reverse engineering will be > possible, but only from share-alike licensed Produced Works. This makes > it impossible to create an "all rights reserved" produced work and > reverse engineer from that; any reverse engineering will be through a > share-alike licensed work, and the resulting database will by protected > by the share-alike license in question. That's an interesting idea. I'd be interested in the opinion of a lawyer on whether it solves the problem I outlined. Gerv _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
