<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><br></div><div>On Dec 5, 2009, at 21:53, Anthony <<a href="mailto:osm@inbox.org">osm@inbox.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 PM, SteveC <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve@asklater.com"><a href="mailto:steve@asklater.com">steve@asklater.com</a></a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Of course they said that, they only support PD-like licenses *as a policy*.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>PD-like licenses? You mean for databases of facts? Or am I misinterpreting "PD-like"?<br>
<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>It's pretty stupid but that's their policy.<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br>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.<br>
<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oh they have been involved, see legal-talk archives back and forth, Richard probably knows when and can link.</div><div><br></div><div>I think the moral stance they take on PD for data is stupid not the whole enterprise of course.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>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".<br>
</div></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>