[OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started
steve at asklater.com
Sun Dec 6 05:00:07 GMT 2009
On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:53, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a
> PD-like licenses? You mean for databases of facts? Or am I
> misinterpreting "PD-like"?
Not quite, their policy is that data 'should' be free. Even if say I'm
a company looking to release data under somethig viral, their response
is that I am wrong and PD like things should be my only choice.
> It's pretty stupid but that's their policy.
> Well, you may think Creative Commons is "stupid", but I hope others
> will give them a chance and listen to what they have to say. I
> think they will, considering that Creative Commons is well known and
> respected, compared to Open Data Commons, who doesn't even seem to
> have an article on Wikipedia.
Oh they have been involved, see legal-talk archives back and forth,
Richard probably knows when and can link.
I think the moral stance they take on PD for data is stupid not the
whole enterprise of course.
> I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM
> would even consider resorting to "browse-through license agreements"
> in order to impose terms which go beyond that of copyright. It's
> the exact oppose of what I'd expect from a site which calls itself
> "open" and "free".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk