On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 17:08, Michael Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote: > We have had a request for another big open organisation to re-use our > contributor terms [1] and summary [2] . > > Both the terms and the summary are by default already published under > CC-BY-SA 2.0. However, my initial thought it that it is more practical to > (also) offer them under a license that does not require attribution. Legal > pages get confusing when they contain text not completely to the point, > particularly to non-native language readers. PD0 springs to mind. Does > anyone think this is a bad idea and if so why? > > Mike > LWG > > [1]http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms > [2]http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms_Summary
The attribution can be put anywhere, even osm.org doesn't have copyright notices nor attribution on frontpage Attribution is a nice thing. It's nice seeing something and being able to confirm that it is from Openstreetmap, and considering the tears, blood and sweat that went into those documents why not mention OSM. In my experience most professional outfits have no problem with giving attribution except figuring out if they have one enough. -- /emj PS. I was going to say that I don't claim any rights over the license/CT, but then I got sidetracked thinking about how the community as a whole could claim copyright based on some kind of sweat of the brow principle, and that got me laughing.. :-) _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
