I'd like to clarify the reason for two (2) licenses. The FIL is being
considered for individual "atoms" of data, while the ODbL is being
considered for major chunks of the database?
Is this correct?
Would it be helpful to:
[1] Determine what is an "atom" that the FIL would apply to.
[2] Determin
80n schrieb:
> As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It was
> grabbed at the last minute from here
It doesn't look like it has been reviewed thoroughly (and the co-ment
page seem to be password protected.)
The requirement to include a copy of the license pretty much d
Hi,
Jean-Christophe Haessig wrote:
> Otherwise, anyone could make legal copies of nearly any photography
> (e.g. landscapes)
Photography is regarded as an art form by the law and the photographer
usually enjoys copyright because it is assumed that the selection of the
motive, and daytime, and a
Le lundi 02 mars 2009 à 13:28 +0100, Iván Sánchez Ortega a écrit :
> > The Factual information license, seems to be a bit schizophrenic. It says
Huh? Now there are two licenses?
> > both that facts are free, and that these free facts cannot be used without
> > including a license...
Facts are f
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega
> wrote:
>>
>> That's called the "stupid jurisdictions" clause.
>>
>> Just because facts are free in your jurisdiction doesn't mean all
>> jurisdictions in the world think the same. Look at
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Iván Sánchez Ortega
wrote:
> That's called the "stupid jurisdictions" clause.
>
> Just because facts are free in your jurisdiction doesn't mean all
> jurisdictions in the world think the same. Look at the CC0 and CC-PD
> licenses.
>
Well, kind of. But would not a
