Hi, Alexrk wrote: > Hmm, if I buy OSM-related consulting services at Geofabrik and don't pay for > it > - you don't wanna sue me? *zwinker*
I'd probably just sell the debt to a collection agency ;-) Geofabrik sells a lot of custom data extracts where the customer gets exactly what they want, and thus while CC-BY-SA allows them to pass it on, someone else is likely to prefer getting their own custom extract rather than using something made for a different purpose. The old model, in my eyes, is: "I have something which anybody *could* copy without any damage to me; however I use copyright to threaten people not to do what they could easily do." It is widely used in the media industry. It is attractive because at least in theory it scales indefinitely - someone using this model can always dream of his photo being used for the iPad desktop or something. You are right in questioning the terms "old" and "new" because obviously my "old" model only came into being through the advent of digital technology. I much prefer something I'd call a "craftsman model" - I do some work for you, and you pay me for it. This obviously doesn't scale quantitatively - I can try to do work that is worth more thus raising my income, but I cannot work 48 hours in a day. > There might be > simple and more complex models. If a simple model works as well, so why not. The simpler, the better. I just don't like those models that threaten users. If I buy a kitchen mixer I can do with it whatever I please - I can take it apart, use the motor to drive a fan, and later re-assemble or sell it. Anything that is physically possible is also allowed. I'd like it to be like that with digital goods as well. > Actually it was just a fixed idea that came to my mind and I wondered how > this > would comply with share-alike - without making it too complicated. Just for > fun, > you know. I didn't intended to start a sophisticated, value added, > ad-financed > business model. As I said, you're preaching to the choir; actually I have always used an example very similar to what you write in the share-alike discussion: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-March/000169.html > This might go to the wrong address again, Frederik, but sometimes I receive > an > impression, that some OSM folks distinguish users between leechers and > contributers and "we" and "they". Which I think is not appropriate. I > believe, > everybody who gets involved in doing something with OSM is a gain for OSM, > even > if one doesn't contribute data directly. Personally I tend to differentiate between the legal and the moral situation. Legally I'd like it all to be PD. Morally. however, if someone comes along and uses OSM data and behaves as if it was "all his", I tend to be critical of that attitude. Just like in science really, where as a scientist you generally have access to anything done by others and you are not even legally required to provide attribution, but if you don't the community will oust you. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
