On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 07/16/2010 09:49 AM, Anthony wrote: > >> >> ODbL is a comparable licence to BY-SA, with the main change being >> that it has actually been written to cover data. >> >> That's not at all correct. The main change between BY-SA and ODbL is >> the requirement to release the database whenever you use the database. >> >> Personally, I think that's a horribly onerous requirement. >> > > You are required to make an *offer*, only to *users* (not the world), > whenever you Use it *publicly*. > Making an offer still requires that you have the database available in some sort of distributable form. And keep it around indefinitely. It's a big burden to carry around while designing your system. Just look how long it took OSM to offer a copy of the entire history database - and arguably they haven't even offered everything. When I design a system to use OSM data I don't want to have to worry about how I'm going to maintain the database in a form which I can distribute to meet the requirements of the license. Frankly, I'll pass on the use of the data if I have to maintain such an onerous requirement. I'll get the data from somewhere else. Or I'll just use the data and ignore the ODbL, since it likely isn't enforceable anyway. It's a source provision requirement, which makes sense given how databases > are used to create maps (or whatever). This has precedents in copyleft > software licences and it is a means of ensuring that users of OSM data are > all free to use that data. > It absolutely has precedents. And it absolutely is *not* a requirement of CC-BY-SA. So don't try to imply that ODbL is basically CC-BY-SA for data. It isn't. It's more like GPL for data. Only with much less usage so much less certainty over exactly what it means.
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
