On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net>wrote:
> > Liz wrote: > > Anything this contrived and complex that the potential users can't sort > > it out fails the usability test. > > There are only three possible data licences that aren't complex: > > 1. You may do anything you like with the data. (=PD) > > 2. You may do anything you like with the data. We ask you to be nice and > credit us, and to release any data you mix up with it. (=PD + Science > Commons-like community norms) > > 3. This data is for your own personal use only. Anything else, you have to > ask us. Sign on the dotted line to consent to this contract, and we'll let > you access the data. (=proprietary) > > Anything else has to be complex in order to apply across wildly different > jurisdictions. There ain't no Berne Convention for data and there is > remarkably little case law, especially relating to a database with so many > authors. You simply cannot write an open data licence which is legally > enforceable the world over without some complexity. It's not ODbL's fault - > it's the inevitable result of the OSM community not managing to agree to 1 > or 2. There are levels of complexity, though. CC-BY-SA would be much more straightforward here, as there is no requirement to release anything you don't want to release. If I were advising that public transport operator I'd recommend they fork off a CC-BY-SA version of the database.
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
