On 07/16/2010 12:26 AM, TimSC wrote: >
Not to mention the notes that accompanied the vote were unashamedly pro-ODbL, despite Creative Commons criticizing the ODbL.
Science Commons's views on the ODbL are not shared by OKFN, who seem to have a better understanding of data law.
(different people and areas have different licensing situations). I might even license my previous data to ODbL in a deal to get that up and running. Share alike (ODbL) is just too complex to be workable (Creative Commons agrees with me). Of course, it would not be as comprehensive as an SA-licensed OSM, but it would be more legally predictable.
I have no confidence in Science Commons's evaluation of other licences when they won't even admit that CC0 has the word "licence" in it.
It would be a bigger change from BY-SA to CC0 (CC0 is the only workable international "public domain dedication" system) than from BY-SA to ODbL.
ODbL *is* complex and I do sometimes worry that it puts the cart before the horse in terms of protecting users of data from restrictions. But there *are* such restrictions around the world, and OSM exists for the freedom of all its users.
- Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
