On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Peter Miller <peter.mil...@itoworld.com>wrote:
> > The ODbL says that one can release Produced Works under any license. > The Factual Information License says that "You must include a copy of > this Licence with the Work in a location reasonably calculated to make > others aware of it." > > Given that OSM data will always have content licensed using the > Factual Information License then how can one create a Produced Work > that doesn't include a copy of the FIL? There seems to be a bit of a > lock-out between the two licenses. > > The generally get the impression that the FIL has had less attention > that the ODbL. It still talk about 'neighbouring rights' a phrase that > was removed from ODbL, and there is no 'or later version of this > license' clause. > As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It was grabbed at the last minute from here http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-data-commons-factual-info-licence/ I don't know whether or not it has been reviewed by Clark Asay but I've not seen any evidence to suggest that it has. In my opinion the FIL is much more important than the ODbL and yet it has had very little attention. When the community is asked to vote on the license change it is the FIL that they need to consider not the ODbL. There doesn't seem to be anything in the FIL that binds it to ODbL. Anyone contributing their work under this license is assigning away virtually all rights to OSM and there is nothing that then requires OSM to use ODbL or any other license. > > > > > Regards, > > > > Peter > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
