On 17/07/10 10:00, 80n wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Chris Fleming <m...@chrisfleming.org
<mailto:m...@chrisfleming.org>> wrote:
Although the intent of ODBl is to provide the protections we
thought we were getting with CC-BY-SA; if we were to go to
something *completely* different then I can image these
discussions getting *really* nasty.
Chris
Do try to pay attention and keep up with the thread ;)
opps :)
Just reading that now.
Diane Peters of Creative Commons posted the following statement in
this thread a few hours ago:
"There are a number of fundamental differences between CC's licenses
and ODbL that at least from CC's point of view make the two quite
different."
ODbL is something "completely" different. In addition the content
license and the contributor terms have no parallel with CC-BY-SA.
Structurally there are big differences.
I don't disagree, I think that I was just trying to make the point that
the *intent* in terms of having a Share Alike component and having some
form of Attribution is present in both licenses? Admittedly in a very
different way.
Anyway, it looks like it's stopped raining outsite so I going to go out
and do some mapping :)
Cheers
Chris
--
e: m...@chrisfleming.org
w: www.chrisfleming.org
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
