[OSM-legal-talk] INANAL - But these guys are

[80n]

There's already a couple of pages on the wiki that list a lot of the key issues:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Legal_FAQ
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Licence_Type/Idea2

80n

On 2/26/07, Nick Black <nickblack1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> We can ask them about how the CC license applies to OSM and what they
> consider constitutes a derived work and the like.  But we can also ask
> them about other licensing options for OSM - perhaps with a view to
> creating a CC, or other such, license for geodata.  This is a bit
> vague I know.  Basically we need to get all the pressing issues
> surrounding OSM's license put into one document, rather than being
> distributed accross the wiki/mailing list/peoples heads.  I'll let you
> know more details as I hear them.
>
> Nick
>
> On 2/26/07, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> > Nick Black wrote:
> >
> > > So with a bit of arm bending, we've managed to get some CC guys to
> > > take a look at OSM's license situation.  What we need is a one or two
> > > page document that summarises OSM's current license, points out the
> > > problems with it and summarises some questions that we have about
> > > licensing.
> >
> > Can you elucidate a bit as to the type of question they can answer?
> >
> > I'm guessing that it's useful to ask CC lawyers questions about
> > interpretation/meaning of a CC licence. I guess it's not useful to ask
> > them big-picture questions like "should we just go PD instead?".
> >
> > cheers
> > Richard
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > legal-talk mailing list
> > legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
> >
>
>
> --
> Nick Black
> --------------------------------
> http://www.blacksworld.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
>