Ed Avis wrote: > To answer my own question - I guess that 'reasonably calculated to > make...' suggests you should include an attribution notice and ask > downstream users to respect it - although it doesn't mandate any > particular choice of licence. So we would still have the attribution > requirement as now.
That's also my understanding (but that one's been hashed out on talk-gb ad tediosum). > To return again to the possible infringements of the OSM licence - in > the cases where currently OSM tiles are being used without attribution, > I can't see any reason why requiring or enforcing attribution would > become easier under the ODbL rather than the current licence. Principally, the CTs (rather than ODbL per se) make it easier for OSMF to act, rather than the burden solely being on individual mappers. As a nice bonus, there are zillions of solicitors who are experienced in contract disputes, but comparatively few in copyright law. Of course, I wouldn't disagree that it's a human problem as well, but then I'm a PD supporter. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OpenStreetMap-License-Change-Phase-3-Pre-Announcement-tp6266295p6284258.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
