Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [odc-discuss] Draft of an Open Data Commons Attribution License

2010-01-12 Thread SteveC
Rufus Awesome this is happening, but the name is wrong. We don't need a OKFNODCAL, and even the ODbL can be shortened, we need something that they all share and then we also need a NC version. I suggest it's just something like OD for OpenDatabase in place of CC, so that you get OD-BY-SA as

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [odc-discuss] Draft of an Open Data Commons Attribution License

2010-01-12 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, SteveC wrote: then we also need a NC version. NC licenses are not compatible with OKFN's own definition of Open Knowledge, Paragraph 8: (quote) 8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the work in a specific field of

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [odc-discuss] Draft of an Open Data Commons Attribution License

2010-01-12 Thread SteveC
On Jan 12, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, SteveC wrote: then we also need a NC version. NC licenses are not compatible with OKFN's own definition of Open Knowledge, Paragraph 8: (quote) 8. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [odc-discuss] Draft of an Open Data Commons Attribution License

2010-01-12 Thread SteveC
You're right we should just give up. Yours c. Steve On Jan 12, 2010, at 10:53 AM, jonathon wrote: On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 13:35, SteveC wrote: we also need a NC version. Need? Problem # 1: Define Non-Commercial Usage. Problem # 2: Define Commercial Usage. Problem # 3: What