On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Jaak Laineste <jaak.laine...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/8/10 Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com>: >> Frederik Ramm <frederik <at> remote.org> writes: >> >>>Any license that tries to use this patchy copyright protection of data >>>is bound to be unfair at the very least, and more likely a pain the >>>behind of anybody who wants to use it. The legality of OSM use cases >>>would depend on whether you execute a project from your Australian or >>>American office. We might be divided on some issues but *that* can >>>surely not be our aim. >> >> It is for each country to decide on its own copyright and other 'intellectual >> property' laws, and we should not try to export more-strict regulations from >> one country to another. The CC licences are carefully written to avoid doing >> this. The ODbL, sadly, seems to take the opposite approach. > > I'd like this approach too: each country should be able to decide > license terms. Communities are different, population/contributor > densities are very different, laws are different. Would it be really > practical, and how it could be technically doable - no idea, perhaps > not. But still I'd like it.
Seriously? What a mess. Frederick obviously is advocating for public domain here (or, more specifically, a public domain-like license), since the only way to offer consistent restrictions is to have no restrictions. ODbL actually makes things less consistent between countries. In addition to the inconsistent treatment of copyright law, it adds inconsistent treatment of database right law, and inconsistent treatment of contract law. It's a step in the wrong direction. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
