On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:43:04 -0400, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:59:37 -0400, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: >> > >> > And what is it that's wrong with CC-BY-SA again? >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ > > So, nothing that is solved by ODbL (an eloquently expressed nothing, of > course).
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ#What.27s_wrong_with_the_current_licence.3F "The main problems that have come to light over time are: * The CC-BY-SA licence was not designed to apply to databases of information and therefore has shortcomings when attempting to protect the OSM data." ODbL protects against the database right and against contract law. " * The method of giving attribution is somewhat impracticable for a project with many thousands of contributors." The ODbL handles attribution differently from BY-SA 2.0 , allowing BY-SA 2.5-style indirect or project attribution. " * Limitations make it difficult or ambiguous for others to use OSM data in a new work (eg mashups) " The ODbL codifies OSM's consensual haullucination that mash-ups are not derivative works. ;-) So the ODbL *does* attempt to address the issues that have been identified with BY-SA for OSM. - Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
