Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> But in five years, we have never been able to obtain clear agreement
> for this.
I assume this is based on gatherings of OSM members, mailing list
discussions, IRC, etc. But I have never been directly asked by OSMF what
the future license should be. I suspect that th
2010/4/20 Iván Sánchez Ortega :
> The goal of copyleft licenses (and the CC suite of licenses) is to simplify
> all that... even if that means that the internal nuts and bolts have to deal
> with the inmensely complex laws.
>
Nice simple ODbL summary:
http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/s
On Tuesday 20 April 2010 18:12:50 Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> TimSC wrote:
> > I am beginning to conclude the ODbL is a bloated, confusing mistake.
>
> I think your characterisation of ODbL as "bloated" and "confusing" is
> grossly unfair.
Well, the fact is that copyright law, the european database
TimSC wrote:
> I am beginning to conclude the ODbL is a bloated, confusing mistake.
> We would be better serviced in our project goals by a simpler
> license i.e. a public domain-like license.
Public domain is unequivocally simpler. For many of us it is also "the
right thing" to do - see the
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> TimSC wrote:
> >/ What is the point in paragraph 4.3, if it can be easily side stepped?
> /
> We have a well working culture of attribution in science, where you
> usually quote the source you took something from, but not the source
> behind the source behind the source.
>
Hi,
M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> do we really want to require the 38th party down the line to still
>> attribute OSM no matter how diluted the OSM content has become?
>
> yes. Why should it have become diluted?
The very nature of a produced work is to dilute OSM content because
otherwise it w
2010/4/19 Frederik Ramm :
> do we really want to require the 38th party down the line to still
> attribute OSM no matter how diluted the OSM content has become?
yes. Why should it have become diluted? If you give this up, you do
almost the same then releasing PD, and that's indeed what you are be
Hi,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 19:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I am not bothered about individual contributions because everyone who
>> contributes *knows* what OSM is like and that he cannot expect to get
>> personal attribution. If someone however has released somet
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 19:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I am not bothered about individual contributions because everyone who
> contributes *knows* what OSM is like and that he cannot expect to get
> personal attribution. If someone however has released something under
> CC-BY-SA without knowing OSM
Hi,
TimSC wrote:
> 1) Create a produced work under ODbL term 4.3 with proper attribution
> 2) Release produced work as public domain with proper attribution
> 3) Strip off legal notices and attribution (which I think is allowed,
> almost by definition, for public domain works)
> 4) Republish as p
TimSC wrote:
> The worst case scenario is the contributor terms cannot accept any
> data with an attribution condition. Hopefully that is not the case!
> Is that interpretation any way valid, interesting, cross eyed? If
> the answer is already out there, just link to it. Thanks!
http://lis
11 matches
Mail list logo
