Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
Hi, John Wilbanks wrote: > If this were the case, we'd have taken in the ODbL, or we'd have written > something like it. With CC's position in the licensing space it'd have > been quickly adopted - people have been pressing me to get a database > license out for five years. > > This would be so much easier than arguing for "no licenses" that I wish > it were true. Gad, I'd love to have something to recommend rather than > "give it all away and make it really free". To back this up, here's a 1.5 years old blog entry from John Wilbanks about SC working on data licensing (or not licensing): http://network.nature.com/people/wilbanks/blog/2007/12/17/open-access-data-boring-but-important It neatly tells the story how they set out to clarify what the CC licenses meant for data, then found that something like a share-alike element was difficult to implement and thought "ok let's go for attribution at least", and in the end felt compelled to even drop that. Whether one agrees to their conclusion or not, I am tempted to believe that, initially, they really wanted their existing set of CC licenses to work for data, and the whole development from there to the current "Open Access Data Protocol" (which is, bluntly speaking, PD with a moral component) is simply the result of reality-testing their wishful thinking. 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Andy Allan wrote: > I disagree with you there Steve. The problem is that *we're the guys > building the engine*, and yet we don't know how the engine management > system works. > > Whilst it doesn't need to be simple enough for *everyone* to > understand (you can do the "I trust him and he knows what he's talking > about" approach that you take with your car), when I can't get my head > around how the license impacts the OpenCycleMap operations (am I > running a collective or derived db? Do I need to release PostGIS > dumps? Can I CC-BY-SA license the tiles?) then there is a complexity > problem, and it probably needs more serious addressing than dismissing > it as "superfluous". My attention has just been drawn (by the latest new Scientist magazine in my house) to http://www.wikimapaid.org/a/wikimapaid and http://www.wikicrimes.org which are both built on google map data. In the current situation, no-one can decide to build one of these on OSM because the definitions have not been given on (for example) "What is a derived database?" I have to say that I cannot vote for this licence over the previous one, because not enough information has been made available concerning the peripheral issues, which concern exactly how we will use the database. Liz ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
SteveC wrote: > > No I think there are some substantial issues, but they're inflated > because of the PoV. I didn't have a chance to get to Science Commons while I was in Boston last week but I did talk to various people who are Smarter Than Me (tm) from the FSF and CC and none of them supported copyleft (actually share-alike) on data. A couple mentioned John specifically. I still do not entirely agree with them. But I am concerned that, even if defending the freedom to use geodata against the problems that Science Commons has chosen (for what they feel are good reasons) not to address (EU DB right, US database copyright, contract law) is the right thing to do, the ODbL may end up being ineffective. And that in jurisdictions those problems do not apply, addressing them by creating rights in order to give them away may end up being counter-productive. The Creative Commons licences import strong Moral Rights and Copyright to where they might not otherwise apply in law or in practice. The ODbL has the danger of doing the same for Database Right. And I am really, really worried about the contract element of the ODbL. All it will take is one database dump of OSM left on a DVD on a bus in a non-DB-right jurisdiction and that's it... - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
"(contract fusion, database fission and anti-copyright-matter)". Inspired :-) Cheers Andy >-Original Message- >From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk- >boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andy Allan >Sent: 25 March 2009 7:09 PM >To: Licensing and other legal discussions. >Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons > >On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:37 PM, SteveC wrote: >> >> On 25 Mar 2009, at 11:34, Andy Allan wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:36 PM, SteveC wrote: >>>> On 22 Mar 2009, at 06:08, 80n wrote: >>>> The complexity arguments are largely superfluous. >>>> [...] >>>> I get in my car every day and drive to work without knowing >>>> how the engine management system works but it's not a 'show stopper'. >>> >>> I disagree with you there Steve. The problem is that *we're the guys >>> building the engine*, and yet we don't know how the engine management >>> system works. >> >> I agree that the authors and groups who built the GPL need to >> understand it, at least to the degree possible with no training in >> law, but do I as a user and contributor to GNU/LINUX need to? That I >> thought was the point? > >A) The GPLEMU - an engine management unit already used in 14,000 >models of car, and 12 other manufactures. I'm heading up the OCMcar >project, and someone suggested using the GPLEMU. I see cars using the >EMU all over the place. It's been roadtested for ten years. People >have sued each other over it, and it's still fine. I'm pretty happy >using the GPLEMU in the OCMcar project, even though I don't understand >it. I don't really need to scrutinise it much. > >B) The ODbLEMU - an engine management unit that's not finished yet. It >uses three technologies (contract fusion, database fission and >anti-copyright-matter) that have never been tried before in >combination. It's complex. It's untested. It's not even finished, but >it will be real soon now. It's probably going to work, because the >guys who are making it seem pretty smart and their hearts are in the >right place, but then again, it might not. Reports back from other >Physicst-legals suggest that there might be fundamental science >problems combining those three technologies that simply can't be >overcome. > >The OCMcar project board (OCMcarF) are asking me whether I should bet >the farm on the ODbLEMU. I say we need to think it over carefully, and >give it way more scrutiny than I would the GPLEMU. Can you see why? > >Cheers, >Andy > >___ >legal-talk mailing list >legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:37 PM, SteveC wrote: > > On 25 Mar 2009, at 11:34, Andy Allan wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 5:36 PM, SteveC wrote: >>> On 22 Mar 2009, at 06:08, 80n wrote: >>> The complexity arguments are largely superfluous. >>> [...] >>> I get in my car every day and drive to work without knowing >>> how the engine management system works but it's not a 'show stopper'. >> >> I disagree with you there Steve. The problem is that *we're the guys >> building the engine*, and yet we don't know how the engine management >> system works. > > I agree that the authors and groups who built the GPL need to > understand it, at least to the degree possible with no training in > law, but do I as a user and contributor to GNU/LINUX need to? That I > thought was the point? A) The GPLEMU - an engine management unit already used in 14,000 models of car, and 12 other manufactures. I'm heading up the OCMcar project, and someone suggested using the GPLEMU. I see cars using the EMU all over the place. It's been roadtested for ten years. People have sued each other over it, and it's still fine. I'm pretty happy using the GPLEMU in the OCMcar project, even though I don't understand it. I don't really need to scrutinise it much. B) The ODbLEMU - an engine management unit that's not finished yet. It uses three technologies (contract fusion, database fission and anti-copyright-matter) that have never been tried before in combination. It's complex. It's untested. It's not even finished, but it will be real soon now. It's probably going to work, because the guys who are making it seem pretty smart and their hearts are in the right place, but then again, it might not. Reports back from other Physicst-legals suggest that there might be fundamental science problems combining those three technologies that simply can't be overcome. The OCMcar project board (OCMcarF) are asking me whether I should bet the farm on the ODbLEMU. I say we need to think it over carefully, and give it way more scrutiny than I would the GPLEMU. Can you see why? Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
>> Steve wrote: John I would assert that you're more worried about perceived competition for your licenses >> JTW says: If this were the case, we'd have taken in the ODbL, or we'd have written something like it. With CC's position in the licensing space it'd have been quickly adopted - people have been pressing me to get a database license out for five years. This would be so much easier than arguing for "no licenses" that I wish it were true. Gad, I'd love to have something to recommend rather than "give it all away and make it really free". >> Steve wrote: and that there are people out there who want to be able to keep attribution and share-alike. I appreciate that you're trying to stop people opening pandoras box and shoe horn the cornucopia of people who might want a database license in to the PDDL before they can figure out there are other options... but ultimately it's not going to work. Someone else, somewhere will try to do another ODbL even if you succeed stopping this one and ultimately people will use it. >> JTW says: This is deeply true and well taken. But as I've always tried to note, my job is to try and fight for the public domain in the sciences, and the existence of these licenses is a threat simply by the opening of the box (and Steve - thank you for this comment and appreciation. Seriously). Thus, I have to try to push the rock up the hill, however Sisyphean the task. Just because it's hard doesn't make it pointless. Unlike software, there is not a governing set of laws that require us to apply the ideas of property to create openness, and unlike software, the ideas of property may well hurt our task. Time will tell. I think OSM is a good community. I believe you've given me a good hearing, for which I thank you. And I accept that you've made the decision that you want SA. Based on a lengthy back and forth with Rufus and Jordan this morning, I'm going to take my high level issues with the license back to the okfn-list, and I'll keep lurking here but only to watch and answer questions. >> Steve wrote: The simplest use case I can think of are all the companies who have datasets that they're be happy with something like BY-SA but would never release anything under PDDL. It's not going to fly to just tell them all that they 'should' release things in to the public domain. >> This is true, and is fine for them. It just makes that data significantly less interoperable. I believe that many communities will come along and re-open that Pandora's Box, encode their own versions of share-alike, and we won't be able to put the data together. I hope I'm wrong, and the nice thing is that we'll have data in a few years to tell us the outcome. jtw ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
Hi,
SteveC wrote:
> I agree that the authors and groups who built the GPL need to
> understand it, at least to the degree possible with no training in
> law, but do I as a user and contributor to GNU/LINUX need to? That I
> thought was the point?
Ideally I would expect that someone who puts his project under GPL has
thought about what he wants to achieve and made a conscious decision
that GPL is the best way to get there.
But the GPL is so widely used already, and GPL users come under such
scrutiny, that I can afford to let examples guide me through GPL. I can,
for example, be reasonably sure that the GPL does *not* require me to
ship my code on CD-ROM to remote parts of Africa and pay the shipping
cost, because if it were so, lots of projects would have been crushed
already and this would be public knowledge. In the same vein, I can
watch existing GPL usage patterns and decide that my project fits in
there ("I want exactly the same as X").
This is not the case with ODbL. If OSM should approve the ODbL then we
would be the first big user of that license. If our users come asking
"can we do X", we can't say "just look what all the others do". And
neither can we say "dunno, ask a lawyer" without looking really really
stupid ("so you guys went through this tremendous relicensing effort,
lost an arm and a leg in the process, and you don't even know what you
did it for?").
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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
On 23 Mar 2009, at 12:47, John Wilbanks wrote: > >> From: Richard Fairhurst >> Though I have a lot of time for CC in general, and agree with their >> general >> stance that PD is the ideal way to go, I don't really find that a >> very >> useful response. >> >> I count 20 occurrences of the word "science", "scientists" or >> similar; eight >> of "education" and "educator"; but not a single one of "map" or >> "geo". > > If this were the "Open Street Map License" and not the "Open Database > License" it's unlikely we would have such a strong opinion. It's one > thing for a community of practice to embed its norms in its own > license. > It's quite another to create such a license and promote its use for > all > databases. > > > Though I disagree fundamentally with share-alike on data for a lot of > reasons, I disagree even more with the promotion of the idea of > licensing into data generally. This isn't simply about OSM writing its > own license - it's about the promotion of the idea that complex > licensing in the name of "freedom" is a good idea, and that's going to > have effects that reach far beyond your community, indeed, into places > where the public domain has to date been the vital steward of data > sharing. > > Software and culture work pretty well for the promotion of single > licenses. But a database of mapping and geo is very different from a > database of biology, chemistry, or physics. And it's even more > different > than a database of cultural works. The promotion of a geomapping set > of > norms as an "open database license" is part of the reason I have > such an > allergic reaction to this license. I'd far prefer this be the OSM > license, but so far, it's being promoted as a generic solution and as > such it's going to be considered by scientists, educators, loop > creators, and on and on and on. So comments *must* address concerns > that > go beyond those of the immediate community. However checking ODbL against OSM has provided a useful reality check for ODbL and has shown up some weaknesses even with quite simple Use Cases. Also, it has become clear that ODbL is not going to define some terms, such as 'substantial' which will leave it for others to guess at or fight about in the courts and many potential users may decide not to take the risk as a result. It may not have been appropriate or possibly for the license authors to define the terms but it does show up a practical problem with a license that depends on ill-defined categories. As for OSM doing its own custom license, I think that is a bad idea because it is important that the data can be combined and reused with other datasets . Personally I am still trying to make ODbL work as well we we can because it will open up other questions and delays if OSM rejects it however I do see where John is coming from on all this. For now we have asked a lot of questions and are now awaiting responses from OSMF and Jordan. Regards, Peter Miller > > > jtw > > -- > > > John Wilbanks > > VP for Science, Creative Commons > http://creativecommons.org > http://sciencecommons.org > http://neurocommons.org > > "We make sharing easy, legal, and scalable." > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
> But open data is much more than just science and education. It's more > than OSM; it's more than maps. The assiduous > how-late-is-my-sodding-train-today people on our town website, for > example, are creating a database that could potentially be licensed > openly. Well put. Then let's open up the license working group to science and education and OSM and more. Then let's do a real analysis of the environmental impact of the license on other communities where the PD is already working and could be enclosed by an "open" database license. Then let's have more than a short window of comment time. But as far as I can tell, this is an OSM driven event. I don't know anyone outside OSM as a community rep that's on the working group. Yet it's being called an Open Database License for cross-community use. We spent about three years working on this across a range of scientific disciplines. CC has analyzed it in the context of education and culture. We came to the PD conclusion. OSM doesn't want to go PD - that's fine, in the end. But when you call the license written by and for a streetmapping community a solution for the rest of the world when the DBs and norms involved vary so much...well, it's odd to then get mad when the rest of the world comes in and comments on it. Your community cares more about reciprocity than interoperability. That's fine and dandy for you. But you're proposing to promote your solution, a complex one engineered and tuned for you, as something that is a generic solution *without doing the research* as to how it will work in generic situations. That's not fine and dandy. I am unaware of a single community other than OSM looking at this license. I've asked OKF and got the null response. Does anyone here know of another? I'd really like to know. Trust me, I have a lot of other things to do with my time. But as long as this license gets promoted as a generic solution for "open data" it gets debated inside science, and that has the direct consequence of enclosing the public domain in my space. My job is to prevent that. If the name could simply be changed I would have a lot less problems here... jtw -- John Wilbanks VP for Science, Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org http://sciencecommons.org http://neurocommons.org "We make sharing easy, legal, and scalable." ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
John Wilbanks wrote: > Software and culture work pretty well for the promotion of > single licenses. But a database of mapping and geo is very different > from a database of biology, chemistry, or physics. And it's even > more different than a database of cultural works. The promotion > of a geomapping set of norms as an "open database license" is > part of the reason I have such an allergic reaction to this license. > I'd far prefer this be the OSM license, but so far, it's being promoted > as a generic solution and as such it's going to be considered by > scientists, educators, loop creators, and on and on and on. So > comments *must* address concerns that go beyond those of the > immediate community. Oh, I'd agree absolutely that comments on ODbL should be exactly that, and not specifically comments on OSM's ODbL implementation. Nonetheless the CC response, to me, reads very much as one focused solely on science and education (I understand that Thinh is a Science Commons type). And given that, I'm not really sure why CC felt the need to restate an already well-understood point. The science/education guys already have a suite of licences/waivers - i.e. CC0/Community Norms etc. - and full marks to them for getting this up and running while the sharealike proponents are still scrapping over the old derivative/collective chestnut. But open data is much more than just science and education. It's more than OSM; it's more than maps. The assiduous how-late-is-my-sodding-train-today people on our town website, for example, are creating a database that could potentially be licensed openly. Now I _personally_ think this should be licensed permissively, just as I think the same for OSM. Yet I don't (sadly) have a monopoly on licensing decisions, and there are a lot of people who would like their data to be licensed with a copyleft component. They do have a valid argument in the geodata sphere, and in the train-running sphere, and in many others, because in each case the market has hitherto been organised solely on commercial lines - emphatically _not_ the case for science and only partly for education. Community Norms are great but, even post-crash, there is no shareholder value in respecting them[1]. That sucks. I know. But it's true. So that's the hole that ODbL fills. A copyleft data licence for those who want one. I understand CC's point when you say (paraphrasing) "we think such a licence would have damaging effects when applied to science and education", and I agree, but that's not what anyone is suggesting. cheers Richard [1] It's maybe instructive that the market fundamentalists within OSM tend to prefer sharealike - it fits into their worldview neatly - and the hippy idealists like me tend to prefer PD. But I may be talking bollocks. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ODbL-comments-from-Creative-Commons-tp22638693p22660095.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
> From: Richard Fairhurst > Though I have a lot of time for CC in general, and agree with their general > stance that PD is the ideal way to go, I don't really find that a very > useful response. > > I count 20 occurrences of the word "science", "scientists" or similar; eight > of "education" and "educator"; but not a single one of "map" or "geo". If this were the "Open Street Map License" and not the "Open Database License" it's unlikely we would have such a strong opinion. It's one thing for a community of practice to embed its norms in its own license. It's quite another to create such a license and promote its use for all databases. Though I disagree fundamentally with share-alike on data for a lot of reasons, I disagree even more with the promotion of the idea of licensing into data generally. This isn't simply about OSM writing its own license - it's about the promotion of the idea that complex licensing in the name of "freedom" is a good idea, and that's going to have effects that reach far beyond your community, indeed, into places where the public domain has to date been the vital steward of data sharing. Software and culture work pretty well for the promotion of single licenses. But a database of mapping and geo is very different from a database of biology, chemistry, or physics. And it's even more different than a database of cultural works. The promotion of a geomapping set of norms as an "open database license" is part of the reason I have such an allergic reaction to this license. I'd far prefer this be the OSM license, but so far, it's being promoted as a generic solution and as such it's going to be considered by scientists, educators, loop creators, and on and on and on. So comments *must* address concerns that go beyond those of the immediate community. jtw -- John Wilbanks VP for Science, Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org http://sciencecommons.org http://neurocommons.org "We make sharing easy, legal, and scalable." ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
Ulf Möller wrote: > Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons has posted detailed comments on > the ODbL on the co-ment website. Though I have a lot of time for CC in general, and agree with their general stance that PD is the ideal way to go, I don't really find that a very useful response. I count 20 occurrences of the word "science", "scientists" or similar; eight of "education" and "educator"; but not a single one of "map" or "geo". cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ODbL-comments-from-Creative-Commons-tp22638693p22657316.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons writes: > While some complexities are introduced by differences in background legal > doctrines, others are introduced by the ODbL scheme itself. > These two points about the complexity of the ODbL are important ones that probably haven't been discussed as much as they should have been. As if the ODbL is not complex enough, when you add in the FIL and all the other considerations that apply to the practical implementation within the OSM context (eg click-through access for mirrored databases etc) then we have something that, in my opinion, is near to being unusable. Given that we have a goal of going from 100,000 contributors to 1 million complexity is something that will cost the community a lot. On my personal list of issues complexity is one that I consider to be a show stopper. 80n 2009/3/21 Jean-Christophe Haessig > Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 19:02 +0100, Ulf Möller a écrit : > > Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons has posted detailed comments on the > > ODbL on the co-ment website. > > A large part of this comment focuses on the complexity of the ODbL. > While simplicity is better, I think we should be allowed a reasonable > amount of complexity in the writing of the license, if our goal is to > make a license that can be reused by others, and if it makes the license > more efficient and suited to our needs. > > My point is that licenses like CC or GPL are not that simple either, but > their extended use makes them well-known and in this case a moderate > amount of complexity is not a problem. > > JC > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:39:01AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > What I wanted to say was that, to a certain degree, *any* certainty is > better than a random assortment of "may", "might", "the project > consensus seems to be that...", "i am not a lawyer but...", "depending > on your jurisdiction", and "depending on the judge's interpreation". As I said, the terms do need to be more well defined, and defined the same for everyone rather than relying solely on definitions in different laws. It’s an unfortunate fact that the licence will have a different interpretation over the world whatever we do, but we can at least try to solve the issues that we see rather than just giving up. > I would very much like to avoid a situation in which an > uncertainty in the interpretation of the license makes user A refrain > from doing something (because he thinks it "might" be against the > license) whereas user B brazenly does the same thing and gains some kind > of advantage by doing it, and then A starts complaining to us. Definitions of a Derived Database, Collective Database, Produced Work and others are things we can make more clear to avoid uncertainty. “Depending on jurisdiction” differences will be unavoidable. The best we can do is make it clear what is intended. It does come back to my comment about enforcing rights if they exist: If there are fewer or no copyright like rights in a jurisdiction, then everyone in that jurisdiction is playing on the same pitch, and I feel they have more freedom anyway. If there are rights, we enforce them to keep the data free in a jurisdicition that would allow another to keep data proprietary. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL comments from Creative Commons
Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 19:02 +0100, Ulf Möller a écrit : > Thinh Nguyen of Creative Commons has posted detailed comments on the > ODbL on the co-ment website. A large part of this comment focuses on the complexity of the ODbL. While simplicity is better, I think we should be allowed a reasonable amount of complexity in the writing of the license, if our goal is to make a license that can be reused by others, and if it makes the license more efficient and suited to our needs. My point is that licenses like CC or GPL are not that simple either, but their extended use makes them well-known and in this case a moderate amount of complexity is not a problem. JC signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
