-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Gervase Markham wrote: > On 14/03/09 20:32, Ulf Möller wrote: >> OSFM is trying to get ODbL 1.0 in place as soon as possible and fix >> problems in version 1.1 later on. > > The difficulty with doing that is that people who are approached about > relicensing their data might say "no, because the licence is broken in > ways X, Y and Z which were highlighted by the discussion process." Even > if the reply is "we hope to fix those in 1.1", they might say "well, > come back then, then". So what happens then? Do we remove their data or > don't we?
It depends on how the license is broken. If it doesn't allow people to do things that we think they should be able to, then that's no worse that the situation now. If it allows people to "steal" the data in some sense, then yes, people would say no. Bear in mind that the new licence won't take away any rights we have under CC-BY-SA. The data will (AFAIK) continue as dual licensed in future. The worst case scenario is that people get to use the data for more purposes than we intend to allow. These people will stop being able to update their database when version 1.1 of the license comes out. Robert (Jamie) Munro -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkm+mKoACgkQz+aYVHdncI2aEgCgqDNEe9Ll3Ug+AamU98EXoN1q Lg8AnRHOU4JYHhBITvtfyK2HbExyA1NW =+8so -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
