On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: >> I think that the misconception from which CC is now distancing themselves is >> that "data should be licensed CC0", not "OSM is a databae of facts". > > Do you think they are also distancing themselves from the position > that scientific data should be licensed CC0? Mike's comments seemed > to imply that they were sticking by that, and I find it hard to see > how cartographic facts are not scientific data.
Personally I'm hoping for a CC-BY-SA which states explicitly that it does not cover unoriginal facts and that it only covers the expression half of the idea/expression divide. This would level the playing field between different jurisdictions, while remaining a "pure grant of permission" and without resorting to "imposing extra restrictions on people beyond what the law specifies". _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
