On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:00 AM, SteveC <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:53, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC < <st...@asklater.com> > st...@asklater.com> wrote: > >> Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a >> policy*. >> > > PD-like licenses? You mean for databases of facts? Or am I > misinterpreting "PD-like"? > > > Not quite, their policy is that data 'should' be free. >
Well, yeah, it should. Especially if you advertise it as such, like calling yourself "the free wiki world map" :). What is OSM's data going to be licensed under? Even if say I'm a company looking to release data under somethig viral, > their response is that I am wrong and PD like things should be my only > choice. > For those of you who'd like a more detailed explanation of their position and why they hold it, a good starting point is at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons Well, you may think Creative Commons is "stupid", but I hope others will > give them a chance and listen to what they have to say. I think they will, > considering that Creative Commons is well known and respected, compared to > Open Data Commons, who doesn't even seem to have an article on Wikipedia. > > > Oh they have been involved, see legal-talk archives back and forth, Richard > probably knows when and can link. > I know. I just hope every one of the 256 people eligible to vote on this proposal has a chance to read their position on the ODbL.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
