Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSMF license change vote has started
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 07:09:30PM +0100, Mike Collinson wrote: > I believe there was a discussion that "viral" does necessarily mean > "reciprocal", hence the use of the word. I'll check tomorrow if no one else > comes back. If you get down to various meanings already documented in English, neither “viral” nor “reciprocal” are perfect fits. I agree that “share alike” is also a good alternative. “viral”, although it does not necessarily mean something bad (infectious smile :) ), it has bad connotations which are just used to bring licenses such as the GPL into bad light. Software under the GPL license does not inject itself into other software and automatically make the result licensed under the GPL, contrary to some belief. “reciprocal” is better, but the mutuality of reciprocation isn’t quite provided by share alike licenses: Share alike says: “I give you this, and allow you to do stuff with it, on the condition that if you give it to someone else, you also allow them to do all this stuff.” It does not necessarily mean that you have to give it back. 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] OSMF license change vote has started
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Simon Ward wrote: > alternative term is “reciprocal license”. "Share Alike license" seems like he correct term since that is in our current license. Viral is a weasel word, bellow the belt. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OSMF license change vote has started
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 12:43:09AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > but while we’re > > trying to prevent all sides equally > > Preventing all sides equally is indeed something we're aiming at, with > all our hearts ;-) Yes, thanks for that. I noticed not long after I sent the mail, but didn’t think it was worth the (in my case what would have been corrective) comment. 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] OSMF license change vote has started
Hi, Simon Ward wrote: > but while we’re > trying to prevent all sides equally Preventing all sides equally is indeed something we're aiming at, with all our hearts ;-) 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] OSMF license change vote has started
I’ve received the mail, answered the poll, and also the preference poll. In the preference poll, I understand the term “viral license” but ask that people refrain from using that term: It has the implication that it is a bad thing - it may be in some peoples’ minds, but while we’re trying to prevent all sides equally it should be avoided. An alternative term is “reciprocal license”. 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] OSMF license change vote has started
Is there a place to post questions? My question is this. Can I agree to the Contributor Terms without agreeing to the contract governing the ODbL. I live in the United States, where factual databases are public domain, and while I have no problem with OSM using my contributions in any way whatsoever, I do have a problem with agreeing to a contract limiting my rights to use the OSM database. Anthony On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Mike Collinson wrote: > If you are an OSMF member then you should have received an email about this > vote, which contains a URL with which you can access this site. If you have > not received an email, first please check your spam folder then, if it still > cannot be found, contact the OSMF membership secretary: membership at > osmfoundation dot org. > > If you are not an OSMF member, you can read the final version of our formal > proposal at: > > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:License_Proposal.pdf > > If you wish, you can make a personal statement making the case for and > against the change here: > > * > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_Yes > * > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Why_You_Should_Vote_No > > Voting is open for three weeks. > > Michael Collinson > OSMF License Working Group > > > > ___ > 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
