At 10:46 AM 14/08/2010, Rob Myers wrote: >On 08/14/2010 07:33 AM, Liz wrote: >> >>If you believe, like many data donors, that the attribution must be preserved, >>then a licence which incorporates the viral provisions is necessary. > >The ODbL does incorporate attribution. From a given work you can find out >which dataset was used to produce it, and from a given dataset you can find >out who produced it. > >BY-SA already requires less attribution than the GNU FDL, and this was an >issue for some people when Wikipedia was relicenced - > >https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Licensing_update/Questions_and_Answers#Attribution > >- Rob.
And section 4 of the Contributor Terms is designed for first-stage attribution of data donors irrespective of license used. Thanks Rob for the article. I was struck by the moderate importance attached in the survey result to the wiki(pedia) history page. It has bothered me that though attribution is a good abstract idea , we lacked a similar mechanism in a database of highly factual non-immutable data to make it sticky. It strikes me that the work by Matt now gives a practical analogue of that in the history planet dump that has now been published. Speculatively, it is perhaps something we should commit to continue publishing as part of our attribution commitments. Mike _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
