Matt.Wilkie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The license I'd like should:
>
> - be free of charge, money for distribution and handling is okay
> - have freedom to modify and change and combine with other data
> - keep original sources of data & copyright notices in all distributions
>
"Matt.Wilkie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The license I'd like should:
- be free of charge, money for distribution and handling is okay
- have freedom to modify and change and combine with other data
- keep original sources of data & copyright notices in all distributions
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 02:48:46PM -0700, Matt.Wilkie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a Geographic Information System tech and I'm about to release a bunch
> of
>
> digital map data, in this case specifically Digital Elevation Models. I'd
> like to use some kind of "free software" like license, but am bewil
sounds to me like what you want is either the artistic licence, which is
rather readable, and has few nastinesses (none in fact that are meaningful).
the gnu gpl is also pretty close to what you want, especially if you want to
really prevent people from for instance applying changes to your maps an
hm, at the time i wrote this my brain failed to pound into my fingers' minds
that the fsf did in fact have a documentation licence. disregard the short
rant in my previous mail.
Matt.Wilkie writes:
> The DEMs now in question were originally acquired from the public domain.
What exactly do you mean by that? It is rather unlikely that any such data
is truly in the public domain.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matt.Wilkie writes:
> The DEMs now in question were originally acquired from the public domain.
What exactly do you mean by that? It is rather unlikely that any such data
is truly in the public domain.
Perhaps it is something like the way that
> The license I'd like should:
>
> - be free of charge, money for distribution and handling is okay
This will probably may make it non-free.
If you want to keep people from merging your data into an
expensive data set and selling the whole, use the GPL.
> - have freedom to modify and ch
>>- have freedom to modify and change and combine with other data
>>- keep original sources of data & copyright notices in all
distributions
>
>`Keeping original sources of data' means quoting the source of
>the data, right?
>It doesn't mean keeping the data in its original source format,
>
Matt said:
>> The license I'd like should:
>>
>> - be free of charge, money for distribution and handling is okay
Peter said:
>This will probably may make it non-free.
>If you want to keep people from merging your data into an
>expensive data set and selling the whole, use the GPL.
Mmm. I don'
Thank you all for the many and informative thoughts on
my query. I was hoping for two things. One, that there
already existed a license specifically structured around
information rather than programs. And two, consensus
from you folks - "Oh, you want license XYZ." :-) Looks
like I'm not going to
"Matt.Wilkie" wrote:
> Matt said:
> >> The license I'd like should:
> >>
> >> - be free of charge, money for distribution and handling is okay
>
> Peter said:
> >This will probably may make it non-free.
> >If you want to keep people from merging your data into an
> >expensive data set and sel
>From: Jonathan P Tomer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>another one you may want to consider is the licence w3c is
>using for their standards... there was a thread about it in debian-legal a
>while ago, which >should be in the archives with a reference.
I was unable to find this thread by scanning th
Matt writes:
> Mmm. I don't it being merged into an expensive data set, but my
> contribution should not be the one to set the dollar value. ie -
> proprietary data set A costs $5k, combine it with my data should not make
> the collection cost $10k. Does that make any sense?
Not really. Let's sa
14 matches
Mail list logo
